Commit Graph

2 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Dotta 0a422fda52
feat(runner): add remote execution substrate (#12638)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Runner gives native runs a durable and governed execution
path.
> - The current native path runs on the control-plane host.
> - Remote environments need an authenticated execution-target contract.
> - The contract must not change direct adapters or enable new runtimes
by default.
> - This pull request adds the remote execution substrate and Daytona
ingress.
> - The benefit is a bounded base for later remote runner transport
work.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #12616.
Refs #12352.

**Subsystem affected**

Cross-cutting. This change touches runner transport, server
orchestration, plugin contracts, and shared settings.

**Problem or motivation**

Native execution cannot resolve an authenticated runner ingress through
a remote environment. The server also lacks one provider-neutral
contract for remote execution targets.

**Proposed solution**

Add a default-off runner preview ingress capability. Add
transport-neutral runner connectivity. Add remote execution target and
lifecycle handling. Add a Daytona ingress implementation with redacted
credentials.

**Alternatives considered**

A provider-specific server path would duplicate orchestration and
authorization. A public endpoint without an environment contract would
weaken the trust boundary.

**Roadmap alignment**

This work supports the Cloud and Sandbox agents milestone. It also
supports self-healing runs and governed tool access.

## What Changed

- Added execution-target traits for local, SSH, and sandbox
environments.
- Added plugin RPC contracts for runner ingress endpoints.
- Added authenticated Daytona preview ingress.
- Added transport-neutral PRP outbound connections.
- Added remote runner artifact verification and fail-closed provider
selection.
- Added bounded native session resume, cancellation, and lifecycle
recovery.
- Preserved Codex-only selection for fresh experimental runner starts.
- Preserved all direct adapter execution and finalization paths.
- Removed stale Pi provider-pack requirements that security review
rejected.
- Kept the rollout controls off by default.
- Did not change pnpm-lock.yaml, Cargo, database migrations, or GitHub
workflows.

## Verification

- GitHub Actions will run the repository test, typecheck, build,
security, and policy gates.
- Focused tests cover ingress validation, redaction, execution targets,
remote lifecycle, cancellation, resume, and legacy adapter selection.
- Local tests were not run. The requested verification policy uses
GitHub Actions for this series.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passes.
- The diff contains 52 files.

## Risks

- Remote execution crosses a trust boundary.
- The implementation validates target capabilities, artifact digests,
provider-pack pins, and connection metadata.
- The feature remains default-off.
- Fresh native selection remains Codex-only.
- Existing direct adapters remain on the legacy path.
- This PR does not yet make remote Codex runnable. The next PR adds the
Rust WSS and TLS transport.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6. The work used high-reasoning agent mode,
repository tools, GitHub tools, and parallel code-audit agents.

## 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 or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
2026-09-01 01:29:06 -05:00
Nicky Leach a14e51d592
refactor(environment): classify environment capabilities from static driver definitions (#12045)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Environment runtime drivers provide workspace, lease, and custom
image behavior
> - Runtime code used driver identity checks and several
capability-specific members
> - These checks spread capability rules across the runtime and made new
drivers harder to verify
> - This pull request adds one general capability classifier and one
static driver support table
> - The benefit is one fail-closed capability model that keeps current
behavior and supports future drivers

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

Environment runtime capability checks for workspace realization, custom
images, lease capabilities, and duplex authorization.

**Subsystem affected**

Cross-cutting (multiple of the above)

**Current behavior**

The runtime selects several capability paths from driver identity and
separate capability members. Custom image gates also trust provider
declarations without checking every matching live worker method.

**Proposed behavior**

The runtime uses one general capability classifier and one static
support table. Custom image gates require both the provider declaration
and every matching live worker method. The public capability names
remain unchanged.

**Reason and benefit**

The change keeps capability rules in one place. It removes identity
conditions from runtime consumers and makes unsupported drivers fail
closed.

**Breaking changes**

None. The public names sandboxCapabilities, sandboxProviders, and
EffectiveSandboxCapabilities remain available.

## What Changed

- Add classifyEnvironmentCapabilities and static support definitions for
all four driver families.
- Add resolveCapabilities to every environment runtime driver.
- Move driver traits into environment-driver-traits.ts and migrate
runtime consumers.
- Require provider declarations and matching live worker methods for all
custom image gates.
- Migrate duplex authorization to the general resolver and remove the
dead sandbox-only member.
- Delete the unused resolveEffectiveSandboxCapabilities wrapper and
update its test.

## Verification

- pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
- pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/environment-capability-contract.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts — 92 tests pass
- pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/environment-driver-traits.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/general-capability-classifier.test.ts — 12 tests
pass
- pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-capabilities.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-duplex.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-duplex-kill-switch.test.ts
— 66 tests pass

## Risks

The main risk is a capability gate that denies a valid driver or permits
an invalid driver. The static support matrix, live worker method checks,
and regression tests reduce this risk. No database, public API, or
published type name changes.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and code execution. The deployment
does not provide a separate 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 (for example, docs/... or
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>
2026-08-23 21:24:59 -07:00