> Follow-up to #11208 (merged): rebased onto master and ready for
review.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release channels promote artifacts along canary → nightly → beta
→ stable, with the happy path being promotion of an existing build
> - When one or two targeted fixes are needed before a beta or stable,
the only options today are waiting for the next nightly or absorbing a
whole day of unrelated master changes
> - The channel model was designed with an escape hatch for exactly
this: short-lived candidate branches carrying only cherry-picked fixes
> - This pull request implements candidate-branch beta builds with full
verification, documents the stable fix path through the
soak-justification gate, and adds the release captain's checklist
> - The benefit is that a surgical fix can ship forward without either
delay or blast radius, with its provenance recorded
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11008 — completes the fix-path half of the channel model
introduced there.
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `scripts/release.sh`,
`.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`, new
`doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md`, tests.
**Problem or motivation**
Beta promotion only accepts commits that already shipped as a nightly,
and stable promotion expects a soaked beta. There is no supported way to
ship one or two cherry-picked fixes between lanes: an urgent fix must
wait for the nightly cycle or pull in every unrelated master change from
the day. The original channel design called for candidate branches to
cover this, and they were deferred from the initial implementation.
**Proposed solution**
Candidate-branch beta builds: cut `candidate/beta-<target>` from a
nightly's source commit, cherry-pick the fixes, and dispatch `channel:
beta` with the new `candidate_branch` input. Selection enforces the
naming convention, rejects heads that already shipped as a beta or
predate the candidate tooling, and records the cherry-picked commits in
the job summary. Because candidate heads never went through a canary or
nightly, publication is gated on a full `release-verify` run (promoted
nightlies keep skipping re-verification). The stable fix path
(`candidate/release-<target>` as `source_ref`) works through the
existing soak gate: the justification requirement is the deliberate,
recorded trade-off for shipping unsoaked bits, and is now documented as
such.
## What Changed
- `scripts/release.sh`: `--from-candidate` flag (beta only) waives the
shipped-a-nightly requirement while keeping the duplicate-beta guard
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`: `candidate_branch` dispatch input;
candidate mode in `select_beta` (naming validation, duplicate and
tooling-era rejection, cherry-pick recording); new
`verify_beta_candidate` job gating candidate publishes on full
verification
- `doc/RELEASING.md`: beta fix-path and stable fix-path sections
- `doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md` (new): the release captain's checklist for
all four lanes as built
- Tests: dry-run fixture coverage for `--from-candidate` (waives the
nightly guard, keeps the duplicate guard, rejected outside beta) and
wiring tests for candidate validation plus the verification gate
## Verification
- `node --test` on the four affected suites: 42 pass in total (17 + 25
across the two runs), including the 5 new tests
- `bash -n` on `release.sh`; YAML parse of the workflow
- After merge: exercise the path end to end the first time a real
cherry-picked beta is needed — dispatch with a `candidate/beta-*` branch
and confirm the summary records the picks and verification runs
## Risks
- Candidate builds bypass the smoke-tested-nightly provenance by design;
the compensating controls are full verification before publish, the
post-publish beta smoke, the human `npm-beta` gate, and recorded
cherry-picks
- The stable fix path rides the existing justification mechanism rather
than adding a second bypass — one recorded escape hatch, not two
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under
human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [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 release subsystem's promotion lanes publish to npm, then push a
lane tag and dispatch the Docker image build at that tag
> - The first nightly of the beta-tooling merge published to npm and
then died at the tag push: GITHUB_TOKEN may not create refs pointing at
workflow-modifying commits from dispatch or scheduled runs
> - The failure was a bare `remote rejected` with no guidance, leaving
the release half-finished (npm live, no tag, no images) until an
operator reverse-engineered the recovery
> - This pull request makes every lane's tag push degrade into exact
recovery instructions in the job summary
> - The benefit is that a rare platform-permission rejection becomes a
two-minute runbook operation instead of a forensic exercise
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11008 — the incident occurred promoting that change's own merge
commit, the first workflow-modifying commit to flow through the lanes it
introduced.
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`,
workflow wiring tests.
**Problem or motivation**
Run 31445344811 published `2026.811.0-nightly.0` to npm, then failed
pushing `nightly/v2026.811.0-nightly.0`: `refusing to allow a GitHub App
to create or update workflow .github/workflows/release.yml without
workflows permission`. The tagged commit modifies workflow files, and
GITHUB_TOKEN may not create refs pointing at such commits from dispatch
or scheduled runs (push-event runs are exempt, which is why the canary
tag on the same commit succeeded). The job failed with no explanation
and the Docker dispatch never ran.
**Proposed solution**
Wrap the nightly, beta, and stable tag pushes: on rejection, write the
exact recovery commands into the job summary — create and push the tag
with maintainer credentials, dispatch `docker.yml` at the tag, and for
stable also run `create-github-release.sh` — then fail the job. Document
the cause and recovery in the failure playbooks and pin the three
recovery blocks with a wiring test.
## What Changed
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`: recovery-summary wrappers on the
nightly, beta, and stable tag-push steps
- `doc/RELEASING.md`: failure-playbook entry for the
workflows-permission rejection
- `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: wiring test
asserting all three lanes carry the recovery summary
## Verification
- Wiring tests: 6 pass; YAML parse of the workflow
- The recovery commands are exactly the ones used to resolve the real
incident (tag push + `docker.yml` dispatch for
`nightly/v2026.811.0-nightly.0`)
## Risks
- Low. The happy path is unchanged (a successful push skips the
wrapper); the failure path trades a bare error for actionable output and
still fails the job, since the release state is genuinely incomplete
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under
human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Split the slow workspaces-a CI lane into two Vitest native shards and keep release verification in parity.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release subsystem promotes builds along canary → nightly → beta
→ stable, and each publish job checks out the promotion's source commit
and runs that tree's release tooling
> - The first beta dispatch failed with `unexpected argument: beta`: the
selected nightly's source predated the beta channel, so its `release.sh`
did not know the argument
> - The failure was clean (argument parsing, nothing published) but
cryptic, and the same trap waits for any promotion of a source older
than its target channel's tooling
> - This pull request makes the selection jobs reject such sources with
an actionable error and documents the property
> - The benefit is that a bootstrapping or old-source promotion fails in
seconds with instructions, instead of mid-publish with a parser error
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11008 — the guard hardens the beta promotion flow introduced
there, after its first dispatch surfaced the gap described below.
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`,
workflow wiring tests.
**Problem or motivation**
Run 31444045044 (first beta dispatch) failed in `publish_beta` with
`unexpected argument: beta`. Promotions deliberately build from the
pinned source commit, which means they also run that commit's
`scripts/release.sh` — and a source that predates the target channel's
introduction cannot publish it. Nothing guards this today; the error
surfaces deep in the publish job with no explanation.
**Proposed solution**
Guard at selection time: `select_nightly` requires the source canary's
`release.sh` to know the nightly channel, and `select_beta` requires the
source nightly's `release.sh` to know the beta channel. Each guard
literally matches the channel case arm and fails closed with a clear
message naming the remedy (promote a newer source). Document the
tooling-era property in `RELEASING.md` and pin the guards with a wiring
test.
## What Changed
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`: tooling-era guards in
`select_nightly` and `select_beta`
- `doc/RELEASING.md`: documents that promotions run the source commit's
release tooling
- `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: wiring test
pinning both guards
## Verification
- Wiring tests: 5 pass
- Guard expressions exercised against real commits: accepts the
beta-capable merge commit of the beta-channel change, rejects a pre-beta
commit
- YAML parse of the workflow
- After merge: the next beta dispatch selects a beta-capable nightly and
passes the guard
## Risks
- Low. Selection-time check only; the guards match the channel case arm
literally and fail closed (with the same actionable message) if that
line is ever reformatted
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under
human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
> Follow-up to #11006 (merged): rebased onto master and ready for
review.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release subsystem now publishes canary (every master push),
nightly (scheduled, smoke-gated, added in #11006), and stable (manual)
> - There is still no human-approved release-candidate lane between
nightly and stable, and nothing enforces that a stable actually soaked
anywhere before shipping
> - Betas need a real approval gate, and stables need a soak policy that
is data, not prose
> - This pull request adds the beta channel: a manual promotion of a
chosen nightly behind the `npm-beta` environment gate, re-smoked after
publish, plus a stable preflight that enforces a 3-day beta soak with a
written-justification bypass
> - The benefit is a complete canary → nightly → beta → stable train
where every stable shipped as a beta first, and emergencies leave a
written trace
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `scripts/release.sh`, `scripts/release-lib.sh`,
`.github/workflows/release.yml`, `.github/workflows/docker.yml`,
`.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`.
**Problem or motivation**
After #11006 the project has canary and nightly prerelease lanes, but no
release-candidate lane. Stable promotion has no enforced soak: any ref
can ship as stable directly. There is no approval boundary for a
broader-audience prerelease, and no structured way to record why an
emergency release skipped validation.
**Proposed solution**
Add a `beta` channel: a manual dispatch that promotes a chosen nightly's
source commit, publishes behind the `npm-beta` GitHub environment
(required reviewers are the gate), re-smokes the published beta, and
tags `beta/vX`. Enforce in the stable path that the source commit
shipped as a beta at least 3 days earlier (measured from the beta's npm
publish time), with a `skip_soak_justification` input as the recorded
emergency bypass.
**Alternatives considered**
Codifying the soak policy in docs only. Rejected: an unenforced policy
decays; the preflight makes the policy executable while the
justification input keeps the emergency path usable and auditable.
## What Changed
- `scripts/release.sh` + `scripts/release-lib.sh`: `beta` channel —
requires HEAD to carry a `nightly/v*` tag, publishes the package set as
`YYYY.MDD.P-beta.N` under dist-tag `beta`, tags
`beta/vYYYY.MDD.P-beta.N`
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`:
- `channel: beta` dispatch path: `select_beta` resolves the newest (or
an explicit `source_version`) nightly and fails loudly on selection
problems; `publish_beta` runs behind the `npm-beta` environment, pushes
the tag, and dispatches `docker.yml`; `smoke_beta` re-runs the release
smoke suite against the exact published beta version
- stable path: new `preflight_stable` job enforces the 3-day beta soak
from the beta's npm publish time; `skip_soak_justification` bypasses
with the reason echoed into the job summary; dry runs report without
blocking
- `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: `beta/v*` tags publish `:beta` on both
images, with exact version stamping
- `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`: `beta` added to the dispatch
choice list
- Docs: `CHANNELS.md` beta entries; `RELEASING.md` beta lane, soak gate,
and failure playbook; `RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md` `npm-beta`
environment setup, including the warning to create the environment
before the first beta dispatch (GitHub auto-creates unprotected
environments on first reference)
- Tests: beta version-counting coverage in
`scripts/release-registry-versions.test.mjs`; beta identity and
nightly-tag guard coverage in
`scripts/__tests__/release-dry-run-notes.test.mjs`
## Verification
- `node --test` on the two touched suites: 17 pass, including the 3 new
beta tests
- `bash -n` on both shell scripts and YAML parse of all three workflows
- After merge, in order: create the `npm-beta` environment, dispatch
`channel: beta` with `dry_run: true` to preview, then a real promotion
of a published nightly through the approval gate, then a stable dry-run
against a young beta to see the soak gate report
## Risks
- If the `npm-beta` environment does not exist when the first beta
dispatch runs, GitHub creates it with no protection rules and the beta
publishes without approval. Mitigated by documentation and by creating
the environment before merge (operator step)
- Until the first beta exists, every stable dispatch requires
`skip_soak_justification`. This is deliberate — the first beta ships
immediately after this merges — but it is a behavior change to the
stable dispatch
- The soak clock reads the beta's npm publish time from the registry; a
registry outage makes the preflight fall back to requiring justification
(fail-closed)
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use (repository exploration, local test
execution, live registry and git verification). All code, tests, and
docs in this PR were model-authored under human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [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 release subsystem's nightly lane gates every nightly on the
release smoke suite, which boots the published artifact in a Docker
container and drives real onboarding
> - The gate kept failing even after the readiness budget fix (#11187),
and the new container-log dump revealed the server was healthy but
listening on 127.0.0.1 inside the container, unreachable through
Docker's port mapping
> - `onboard --yes` without an explicit `--bind` prefers trusted-local
quickstart defaults: it writes a loopback bind into the instance config
and ignores the deployment env vars the harness passes, and that config
outranks `HOST` at runtime
> - This pull request pins the smoke container to the `lan` bind preset
and adds a wiring test for it
> - The benefit is a working nightly gate, verified end to end against a
real published canary
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Release smoke testing: `docker/Dockerfile.onboard-smoke`,
`scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`.
**Problem or motivation**
Nightly run 31428558684 failed in smoke with the server unreachable at
the mapped port for the full 420 second budget. The container logs
(captured thanks to #11187) show a fully booted server with `Bind
loopback (127.0.0.1)`. The harness sets `HOST=0.0.0.0` and the
deployment env vars, but `onboard --yes` without `--bind` deliberately
prefers trusted-local defaults, writes `bind: loopback` into the
instance config, and the config outranks `HOST` at runtime. A loopback
listener inside a container is invisible to the port mapping, so the
health check can never pass. This behavior predates the current stable,
so the harness was silently broken against every recent version — it
only surfaced now because the nightly lane is the suite's first CI
consumer.
**Proposed solution**
Pass `--bind lan` in the smoke container command (the flag is supported
by `latest` and canary alike; it selects the all-interfaces preset and
keeps the env-driven authenticated deployment), and pin the flag with a
wiring test so it cannot regress silently.
## What Changed
- `docker/Dockerfile.onboard-smoke`: the onboard command is now `onboard
--yes --bind lan --data-dir ...`, with a comment explaining why the flag
is load-bearing
- `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: wiring test
asserting the smoke Dockerfile pins a non-loopback bind preset
## Verification
- Full local harness run against the real nightly candidate
`2026.810.0-canary.1`: container healthy, bind banner shows `lan
(0.0.0.0)`, authenticated bootstrap completed (admin created, bootstrap
invite accepted, board session verified), `/api/health` returns
`bootstrapStatus: ready`
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: 4
pass
- After merge: dispatch `release.yml` with `channel: nightly` to run the
gate end to end in CI
## Risks
- Low. The change only affects the smoke container. `--bind lan` inside
a container exposes the port to the container network only; reachability
from outside still goes through Docker's explicit port mapping
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use (CI log forensics, upstream source
tracing, local Docker reproduction and verification). All changes
model-authored under human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [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 release subsystem's nightly lane (#11006) gates every nightly
publish on the release smoke suite, which boots the published artifact
in a Docker container
> - The suite's first CI execution failed at the health readiness check:
the harness hard-codes a 90 second budget, but a CI container
cold-installs paperclipai from npm and initializes embedded postgres
with no warm caches
> - When the timeout expired with the container still running, the
harness printed no container logs, so the failure gave no diagnostics
> - This pull request makes the readiness budget configurable, raises it
for CI, and dumps container logs on timeout
> - The benefit is that the nightly gate measures the artifact, not the
runner's cold caches, and a red smoke run is diagnosable from its logs
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Release smoke testing: `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`,
`.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`.
**Problem or motivation**
Run 31426044332 (first forced nightly after #11006) failed in
`smoke_nightly` with `server did not become ready at
http://localhost:3232/api/health` after exactly 90 seconds. The
harness's readiness window is hard-coded to 90 attempts at 1 second.
Locally that works because the npm cache is warm; in CI the container
downloads the full package set and embedded postgres first. The timeout
path also printed no container logs when the container was still
running, so there was no way to see how far boot had progressed.
**Proposed solution**
Make the readiness budget an environment variable
(`SMOKE_READY_TIMEOUT_SECONDS`, default unchanged at 90 for local use),
set it to 420 in the CI workflow, and dump the last 150 container log
lines when the readiness check times out on a still-running container.
## What Changed
- `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`: `SMOKE_READY_TIMEOUT_SECONDS` env
var (default 90) replaces the hard-coded readiness budget; timeout with
a still-running container now prints the tail of `docker logs`
- `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`: sets
`SMOKE_READY_TIMEOUT_SECONDS=420` for CI runs
## Verification
- `bash -n` on the harness and YAML parse of the workflow
- The real proof is the next `channel: nightly` dispatch of
`release.yml`, which re-runs this suite in CI with the new budget
## Risks
- Low. The local default is unchanged; CI runs simply wait longer before
declaring failure, and a genuinely broken artifact still fails (with
logs now)
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use. Diagnosis from CI run logs; patch
model-authored under human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [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 release subsystem publishes the `paperclipai` npm package set
and the Docker images on two lanes: canary on every master push, and
stable on manual promotion
> - There is no middle ground between those lanes. Users must track
every merge or wait weeks for a stable. Docker `:latest` also tracks
master, so Docker users have no stable image at all
> - A calm prerelease lane needs to exist, and it must never ship a
build that failed its checks
> - This pull request adds the nightly channel: a scheduled job that
selects the newest master commit with a green canary publish, runs the
full release smoke suite against that exact published canary, and only
then republishes it as the nightly. It also separates Docker tags by
lane, so `:latest` finally means stable
> - The benefit is that users can follow prereleases at a nightly
cadence with a smoke-tested guarantee, and Docker users get real
`:canary`, `:nightly`, and stable image tags
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `scripts/release.sh`, `scripts/release-lib.sh`,
`.github/workflows/release.yml`, `.github/workflows/docker.yml`,
`.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`.
**Problem or motivation**
The project publishes only `canary` (every master push) and `latest`
(manual stable). Users who want prereleases without per-merge churn have
no option. Docker has a second problem: master builds overwrite
`:latest`, and CI-published stables never produced Docker images,
because tags pushed with `GITHUB_TOKEN` do not fire the `v*` tag trigger
in `docker.yml`. No stable-versioned image exists in ghcr today.
**Proposed solution**
Add a `nightly` channel. A scheduled job selects the newest
canary-tagged master commit, smoke-tests that exact published canary,
and republishes the same commit as `YYYY.MDD.P-nightly.N` under the
`nightly` dist-tag. Separate Docker tags by lane (`:canary` for master,
`:nightly` for nightly tags, `:latest` plus version tags for stable tags
only), and have the release jobs dispatch `docker.yml` at the new tag so
lane images actually build.
**Alternatives considered**
Moving the `nightly` dist-tag to the existing canary version without a
republish. Rejected: the version string would say `canary` while the
user is on nightly, which breaks at-a-glance lane identification in bug
reports and `--version` output.
## What Changed
- `scripts/release-lib.sh`: channel-parameterized
`next_prerelease_version` and `prerelease_tag_name` helpers (canary
helpers delegate to them), a `require_channel_tag_at_head` guard, and
the no-provenance retry for Sigstore transparency-log duplicates now
covers the `nightly` dist-tag as well as `canary`
- `scripts/release.sh`: new `nightly` channel. It requires HEAD to carry
a `canary/v*` tag, publishes the full public package set as
`YYYY.MDD.P-nightly.N` under dist-tag `nightly`, and tags the source
commit `nightly/vYYYY.MDD.P-nightly.N`
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`: scheduled nightly chain (09:00 UTC) —
select candidate, smoke it via `release-smoke.yml`, publish on green
under the existing `npm-canary` environment, push the tag, dispatch
`docker.yml`. New `channel` dispatch input (default `stable`, so
existing stable dispatches are unchanged) with `nightly_source_version`
and `dry_run` support for forced runs. The stable path now also
dispatches `docker.yml` at the new `v*` tag
- `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: lane tag mapping for both image jobs —
master pushes publish `:canary` and no longer move `:latest`;
`nightly/v*` tags publish `:nightly`; only stable `v*` tags publish
`:latest` and the versioned tags. New `workflow_dispatch` trigger for
the release-job dispatches. Build-version stamping uses the exact
nightly version on nightly tag builds
- `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`: `nightly` added to the dispatch
choice list
- `doc/CHANNELS.md` (new): user-facing guide to the channels
- `doc/RELEASING.md`: nightly lane documentation, Docker tag mapping
table, and a nightly failure playbook
- `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`: note that nightly reuses
`npm-canary` and needs no npm trusted-publisher changes
- Tests: channel-parameterized version helper coverage in
`scripts/release-registry-versions.test.mjs`, and nightly flow coverage
(publish identity, notes not required, canary-tag guard) in
`scripts/__tests__/release-dry-run-notes.test.mjs`
## Verification
- `node --test` on the release script suites: 68 pass, including 6 new
tests. The only failure, `acpx-patch-packaging.test.mjs`, needs
installed `node_modules` and fails identically on a pristine checkout of
master in the same environment
- `bash -n` on both shell scripts and YAML parse of all three workflows
- Live fail-path check: `./scripts/release.sh nightly --print-version`
from a master tip with no canary tag fails with `HEAD has no canary/v*
tag`
- Live success-path check: the same command from the
`canary/v2026.806.0-canary.7` commit prints `2026.806.0-nightly.0`
- Live selection check: the candidate-selection shell logic run against
the real repository selects the commit of `canary/v2026.806.0-canary.7`,
which matches the current npm `canary` dist-tag exactly
- After merge: dispatch `release.yml` with `channel: nightly` and
`dry_run: true` to preview, then a real forced run to validate end to
end before the first scheduled run
## Risks
- Docker `:latest` changes meaning from "latest master build" to "latest
stable release". This is deliberate and will be announced. Users who
want the old behavior pull `:canary`. Until the first stable release
after this change, `:latest` stays at its current (master-built) image
- The nightly is a rebuild of the same source commit, not the
byte-identical canary artifact that was smoked. The lockfile pins
dependencies, and the publish path's registry-visibility and
clean-prefix install gates still run on the nightly artifacts
- All npm publishing must stay inside `release.yml` because npm trusted
publishing pins that workflow file per package. The nightly jobs were
added to `release.yml` for exactly that reason; this constraint is now
documented in `RELEASING.md`
- The stable-lane Docker dispatch fails gracefully (a warning with
manual instructions) when the source ref predates `docker.yml`'s
`workflow_dispatch` trigger
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use (repository exploration, local test
execution, live registry and git verification). All code, tests, and
docs in this PR were model-authored under human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [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 PR workflow runs the server vitest suite across sharded runners
because the suite is pinned to one worker.
> - In successful PR run 30930345729 (2026-08-04), shard `server (3/4)`
took 311 seconds of wall time and was the slowest check in the run.
> - The suite has grown to about 946 seconds of serial vitest time, but
the duration manifest was last sampled on 2026-08-01 at about 882
seconds.
> - This pull request refreshes the per-suite duration manifest from
that run's logs and splits the lane into five shards.
> - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path: each shard carries about
196 seconds of suite time, level with the other lanes.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10663 (previous split of this lane into four shards).
Related: #10923 splits the separate serialized-suites lane into five
shards. Both PRs touch `.github/workflows/pr.yml` in different matrix
blocks; whichever merges second needs a trivial rebase.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The `general-server` vitest lane runs in four shards with a duration
manifest sampled on 2026-08-01.
**Current behavior**
In PR run 30930345729, shard 3/4 ran for 311 seconds (273 seconds in the
test step) and was the longest check in the run. The suite now totals
about 946 seconds of serial vitest time.
**Proposed behavior**
Run the same suite set in five shards, balanced with a per-suite
duration manifest refreshed from that run's shard logs (279 suites
measured by diffing consecutive completion timestamps).
**Reason and benefit**
The refreshed LPT partition balances at about 196 seconds of suite time
per shard (about 240 seconds per job), level with the other PR lanes. No
test coverage is lost.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change only alters the CI partition size and the duration
manifest.
## What Changed
- Bump the `general-server` shard matrix in `.github/workflows/pr.yml`
from four to five shards.
- Refresh `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` from the
2026-08-04 run's shard logs.
- Update `SHARD_COUNT` in
`scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` to five.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` — 9/9
pass, including the complete non-overlapping partition proof and the
duration-balance check.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 2/2
pass.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` — 7/7 pass.
- A 5-way dry-run partition covers all suites exactly once with equal
projected weights.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only alters CI partition size and duration
weights; the suite set is unchanged.
- One more runner is used per PR run for this lane.
- Stale duration weights degrade gracefully: suites missing from the
manifest get the median weight.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), Claude Code CLI, model ID `claude-fable-5`,
extended thinking with tool use 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
(workflow comments explain the new shard math)
- [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: Claude <claude@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses CI to keep control-plane changes safe and mergeable.
> - The PR workflow splits serialized server tests across isolated
runners.
> - A recent successful run spent 305 seconds in serialized shard 2/4.
> - That job was the slowest check in the run.
> - The four shards reported about 739 seconds of Vitest suite time.
> - This pull request adds a fifth serialized shard and keeps release
verification aligned.
> - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path with no loss of test
coverage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The PR and release verification workflows run serialized server tests in
four shards.
**Current behavior**
Successful PR run 30876682788 spent 305 seconds in `Verify serialized
server suites (2/4)`. The test step used 256 seconds and made this job
the slowest check.
**Proposed behavior**
Run the same serialized suite set in five complete and non-overlapping
shards.
**Reason and benefit**
The measured suites reported about 739 seconds of total Vitest time.
Five runners reduce the expected average suite time from about 185
seconds to about 148 seconds before setup overhead.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change only alters CI partition size.
## What Changed
- Split serialized server tests into five shards in the PR workflow.
- Apply the same five-shard layout to release verification.
- Add a partition test that proves complete and non-overlapping
serialized coverage.
- Update release workflow coverage tests for five shards.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- Low risk. CI uses one additional runner for the serialized lane.
- Round-robin partition weights can still vary as suite timings change.
> This change does not overlap with planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`.
Related PR #10663 optimized the separate general-server lane.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, agentic coding with 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)
- [ ] 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: Devin Foley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Isolated workspaces give each task a safe and reproducible checkout.
> - The existing setup cloned the development database before an agent
needed to run the app.
> - This made worktree creation slower and heavier for tasks that never
start a service.
> - Runtime services already use one server start path for heartbeat,
operator, and startup recovery flows.
> - This pull request moves heavy setup to that start path and keeps
worktree creation lean.
> - The benefit is faster isolated workspace creation with the same
reliable runtime setup when a service starts.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related pull request: #10652 covers the initial deferred
database-seeding slice. This pull request supersedes it with end-to-end
runtime provisioning and safe cleanup.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves isolated worktree creation, runtime service startup, and
isolated instance cleanup.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: CLI worktree setup, server runtime orchestration, shared
workspace contracts, and development scripts.
**Current behavior**
Paperclip seeds an isolated development database during worktree
creation. It can also leave an isolated instance directory after
workspace teardown. This work happens even when no runtime service
starts.
**Proposed behavior**
Paperclip creates the worktree with a lean eager setup. It runs an
idempotent runtime provision command before the first managed service
spawn. Concurrent starts share one provision attempt. Teardown removes
the isolated instance safely.
**Reason and benefit**
Many agent tasks only edit and test code. They do not need a running
Paperclip instance. Deferring the database seed reduces workspace
startup cost while preserving automatic setup for tasks that start the
app.
**Breaking changes**
None. The new runtime provision command is optional. Existing workspace
behavior is unchanged when it is absent.
## What Changed
- Split Paperclip worktree setup into a lean eager script and an
idempotent runtime provision script.
- Added `runtimeProvisionCommand` to project, issue, realized workspace,
and persisted workspace contracts.
- Added a per-workspace provision mutex before local service spawn for
heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows.
- Added a persisted `provisioning` service state and the
`workspace_runtime_provision` operation phase.
- Kept provision time outside the service readiness timeout and made
failed attempts visible and retryable.
- Reclaimed isolated instance data during safe workspace teardown.
- Serialized deferred database seeding across processes and bound
teardown to the instance root captured in persisted workspace metadata.
- Added tests for config flow, concurrency, retry, no-op behavior,
readiness timing, scripts, CLI commands, and cleanup.
- Documented the eager and runtime provisioning contracts.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm test:run` (server: 3,201 passed; UI: 3,345 passed; the CLI phase
exposed one environment-sensitive AWS doctor assertion because the agent
runtime injects static AWS credentials)
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest
run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts -t 'passes AWS doctor checks when
non-secret provider config is present'`
- Focused runtime tests cover serialized provisioning, retry after
stderr failure, absent-command no-op behavior, operation logging,
persisted state order, and readiness timeout exclusion.
- Focused CLI and cleanup tests cover concurrent seed serialization,
stale-lock fail-closed behavior, persisted instance ownership, and
rewritten sibling pointers.
## Risks
- A faulty runtime provision script blocks service startup. Paperclip
records stderr, marks the service failed, and retries on the next start.
- Concurrent service requests share an in-process provision attempt,
while the seed command uses an atomic filesystem lock across processes.
A stale lock fails closed and requires an operator to verify no seed is
running before removing it.
- Isolated instance cleanup is destructive. The cleanup service
validates ownership and path containment before removal.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.6-sol`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and
code execution. The service 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>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request CI must give contributors fast and stable feedback.
> - The `general-server` Vitest lane runs many single-worker server
suites.
> - A recent completed PR run showed this lane as the slowest completed
check.
> - Three shards still left one runner with the largest share of work.
> - This pull request splits that lane into four duration-balanced
shards.
> - The benefit is a shorter critical path for the same server test
coverage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this CI maintenance change.
**Pre-submission checklist**
- I confirmed this improves existing behavior. It does not add a new
command, endpoint, or concept.
- I searched open public issues and pull requests for related CI
sharding work.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The pull request workflow's `general-server` Vitest lane.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. This affects GitHub Actions CI and the Vitest shard
duration manifest.
**Current behavior**
The `general-server` lane uses three shards. The server suites now total
about 880 seconds of serial Vitest wall time. The slowest shard was
about 313 seconds in the measured run.
**Proposed behavior**
The `general-server` lane uses four shards. Each shard receives about
220 seconds of predicted suite weight from the refreshed duration
manifest.
**Reason and benefit**
The slowest PR check controls how soon a reviewer can trust the PR. Four
balanced shards reduce the slowest `general-server` shard while keeping
the same suite selection rules.
**Breaking changes**
None. This only changes CI partitioning and duration data for existing
test suites.
**Additional context**
Related public searches found no exact open issue or pull request for
this `general-server` sharding change.
## What Changed
- Split the `general-server` CI matrix from three shards to four shards.
- Refreshed `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` with wall-time
weights from a recent completed PR run.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- Dry-ran the four `general-server` shards locally during
implementation. The partition covers 300 unique suites with about 220.56
seconds of predicted weight per shard.
- Ran a local sensitive-data scan before push. It found only test
filenames that contain words such as `secret` or `token`, not credential
values.
## Risks
Low risk. The main risk is that the duration manifest becomes stale as
suite costs move. Missing suites fall back to the median weight, so the
lane still runs if the manifest is incomplete.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and local command 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 uses pull request CI to test changes before merge.
> - The e2e PR lane runs Playwright specs in a shard matrix.
> - Each shard builds a list of spec files for its matrix entry.
> - The workflow passed that list after a literal `--` separator.
> - Playwright did not receive the list as file filters.
> - This pull request removes the separator and adds a guard test.
> - The benefit is that each e2e shard runs only its assigned specs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10629.
**What happened?**
The e2e shard step used `pnpm run test:e2e -- $specs`. The shard spec
list was not applied as Playwright file filters.
**Expected behavior**
Each e2e shard should pass only its selected specs to Playwright.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Inspect `.github/workflows/pr.yml` at the merge commit for #10629.
2. Find the `e2e_shards` command that invokes `pnpm run test:e2e`.
3. See the literal `--` before `$specs`.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`86767951`
**Deployment mode**
GitHub Actions PR CI.
## What Changed
- Removed the literal `--` from the e2e shard `pnpm run test:e2e $specs`
invocation.
- Added a regression test that checks the workflow passes `$specs`
without that separator.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
## Risks
Low risk. This changes one CI command and one workflow guard test. The
main risk is shell argument handling in the workflow, and the guard now
covers the expected command shape.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 through Codex. The run used shell and GitHub CLI tool
access. The runtime did not expose a 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 pull request workflow protects changes with a Playwright e2e
lane.
> - That lane already uses a weighted file partition so slow specs do
not cluster by test count.
> - Recent green PR runs showed the two e2e shard jobs were slower than
the next slow required lane.
> - The largest spec is indivisible, so a third shard lets that spec run
alone and lets the rest split by duration.
> - This pull request changes only the PR e2e shard matrix and the guard
test.
> - The benefit is a shorter expected PR critical path while the
required `e2e` aggregate check name stays stable.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9923
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The `pull_request` workflow Playwright e2e lane.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: GitHub Actions CI and test scripts.
**Current behavior**
The PR workflow runs the weighted Playwright e2e partition across two
jobs. Recent green runs showed those jobs as the slowest required
checks.
**Proposed behavior**
The PR workflow runs the same e2e spec set across three weighted jobs.
The aggregate required check stays named `e2e`.
**Reason and benefit**
The third shard lets the slow smoke-lab spec run alone while the rest of
the catalog stays balanced. This should shorten the PR critical path.
The win is bounded by fixed per-job setup time.
**Breaking changes**
None. The required aggregate check contract is preserved.
## What Changed
- Change the PR e2e shard matrix from two entries to three entries.
- Update the shard guard test to expect three shards.
- Floor the balance bound at the largest single spec weight.
- Assert that the workflow does not define more shard indexes than
`SHARD_COUNT`.
## Verification
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` passes with 6
tests.
- The recorded-weight partition is complete and non-overlapping: 168.0s,
116.5s, and 114.4s.
- I checked `ROADMAP.md` and found no overlapping roadmap-level core
feature.
- I searched public GitHub PRs and issues for related e2e shard work. I
found related PR #9923 and no open duplicate for this branch or change.
## Risks
- This adds one extra GitHub Actions runner to the PR e2e lane.
- The wall-clock win is bounded by fixed per-job setup.
- Behavior risk is low because the aggregate required check remains
named `e2e`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool-enabled coding agent in this repository. The
runtime did 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: Cody <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies
> - Managed updates can change both the application payload and its
database schema
> - Unit tests cannot prove that an older live install upgrades through
a real migration and remains recoverable
> - The managed-install work in #10045 needs a repeatable cross-version
system test
> - This pull request adds an isolated end-to-end harness for update,
migration, backup, service restart, and rollback behavior
> - The benefit is a direct proof that managed upgrades preserve the
existing database and service lifecycle across versions
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10045
This test is a focused follow-up to the managed install integration.
Merge #10045 first so the tested install, update, service, backup, and
rollback commands are available.
## What Changed
- Added a cross-version managed-update E2E script.
- Installed an older Git ref, initialized its embedded PostgreSQL
database, and updated to a ref with one additional migration.
- Verified the pre-update backup, payload switch, service recovery,
migration result, database-cluster reuse, and rollback behavior.
- Isolated Paperclip state under a dedicated test home and cleaned up
the service and managed install on success or failure.
- Added regression tests for shell syntax, required-ref validation,
side-effect-free preflight failure, and complete failure cleanup.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-update-migrations.test.mjs`
- `bash -n scripts/e2e-update-migrations.sh`
- GitHub latest-head CI: build, typecheck, release registry, canary
dry-run, general tests, serialized suites, and both browser E2E shards
passed.
- Full harness execution needs an isolated macOS or Linux host with a
real launchd or systemd user service. It is intentionally not run on a
live Paperclip server host.
## Risks
- The script manages a real user service and downloads two Git refs. Run
it only on an isolated test host.
- The test needs #10045 because `origin/master` does not yet contain the
managed install lifecycle.
- The script uses a dedicated `PAPERCLIP_HOME`, refuses a pre-existing
shim or test home, and removes its service and install during cleanup.
> 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 runtime did not expose a more
specific deployment ID or context-window size. Reasoning, repository
access, shell execution, and GitHub tooling 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
- [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
> - Agents run tasks in isolated execution workspaces that are
provisioned as git worktrees by `scripts/provision-worktree.sh`
> - The script runs the base workspace's CLI (`cli/src/index.ts` via the
base `tsx` install) to seed each new worktree, and it only checked that
those files exist
> - pnpm links each package's `node_modules` into a hash-versioned
virtual store; a lockfile change followed by a partial or filtered
install prunes old hashed dirs without relinking every package, leaving
dangling symlinks
> - A CLI with dangling symlinks fails ESM resolution
(`ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND`) at boot, so provisioning aborts with
`setup_failed` — deterministically, on every retry, with no self-heal
path
> - This pull request makes provisioning health-check the CLI by
actually booting it, repair the base install when the check fails, and
degrade to the no-CLI fallback config instead of failing the run
> - The benefit is that a class of permanent `setup_failed` loops
becomes self-healing, and workspace provisioning survives a broken base
CLI
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists; the underlying bug is described here per
`bug_report.yml`. Related PR: #10578 self-heals the sibling
workspace-validation failure loop uncovered by the same incident
diagnosis.
**What happened?**
Isolated-workspace runs failed at provision time with `setup_failed`.
Every retry failed identically. One observed incident burned 4 runs
across two adapters before the task was stranded.
**Expected behavior**
Provisioning either succeeds or degrades gracefully; a broken base CLI
install repairs itself instead of permanently blocking all new
worktrees.
**Steps to reproduce**
In the base workspace, cause a lockfile-affecting dependency bump plus a
partial/filtered `pnpm install` so a package symlink (e.g.
`cli/node_modules/drizzle-orm`) dangles into a pruned virtual-store dir.
Start any isolated-workspace run. Provision fails with
`ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND` and the run ends `setup_failed`; retries never
recover.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master as of the branch point of this PR.
**Deployment mode**
Local trusted deployment with git-worktree isolated workspaces.
## What Changed
- `base_cli_healthy` now boots the base CLI (`--help`) instead of only
testing file existence, which exercises the top-level import graph.
- New `repair_base_workspace_install`: when the health check fails, run
a non-interactive `pnpm install --prod=false --force --frozen-lockfile`
in the base workspace. `--force` guarantees relinking when pnpm's
up-to-date heuristics would skip dangling symlinks; `--frozen-lockfile`
keeps the repair from mutating the shared lockfile.
- The repair install is serialized with `flock` on a lock file inside
the resolved git dir (`git rev-parse --absolute-git-dir`), so locking
also covers base workspaces that are linked worktrees, where `.git` is a
file.
- If every CLI candidate is unusable (including a base CLI the repair
could not fix), provisioning falls back to the existing no-CLI fallback
config writer (loudly, on stderr) instead of failing the run. A CLI that
runs and fails `worktree init` still fails provisioning with its real
exit code — that deliberate fail-closed policy is unchanged and covered
by an existing server regression test.
- Fixed a latent bug: `run_isolated_worktree_init` returned 0
unconditionally after the init subshell, so callers treated a failed
init as success. Exit codes now propagate.
## Verification
- Reproduced the incident state (dangling `cli/node_modules/drizzle-orm`
symlink); the base CLI failed with the exact `ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND` seen
in the incident run logs.
- Ran the patched script against a fresh scratch worktree: health check
failed → locked repair install ran (~26 s warm) → symlink relinked →
`worktree init` completed → exit 0 with `.paperclip/config.json` and
`.env` written.
- Happy path (healthy base CLI): provisioning behavior unchanged, exit
0.
- Verified `git rev-parse --absolute-git-dir` resolves a real directory
for both a normal checkout and a linked worktree.
- New hermetic tests: `node --test
./scripts/__tests__/provision-worktree-self-heal.test.mjs` (4 tests:
healthy CLI used, broken CLI degrades, locked repair end-to-end with a
fake pnpm, init failure propagates). Not yet wired into a CI workflow.
- `server`: the existing `realizeExecutionWorkspace` fail-closed
regression test ("fails instead of writing an unseeded fallback config
when worktree init errors after CLI detection succeeds") passes against
the new script.
- `bash -n scripts/provision-worktree.sh` is clean.
## Risks
- Low risk overall: the script only adds recovery paths; the happy path
is unchanged.
- The repair install runs in the shared base workspace. It is bounded by
`--frozen-lockfile` (no lockfile mutation) and serialized by `flock`,
but it can add ~30 s to the first provision after a base install breaks.
- If the repair cannot fix the CLI and no other CLI candidate exists,
runs now continue with an unseeded fallback config instead of failing;
that is intentional, and the fallback path already existed. Genuine
`worktree init` failures from a working CLI still fail the run.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model ID `claude-fable-5`), extended
thinking, agentic tool use (Claude Code harness).
## 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The pull request workflow is the main merge gate for changes to that
app.
> - The Playwright e2e lane is expensive because every spec shares one
isolated server and runs serially.
> - Splitting that lane across runners shortens the critical path, but
the public required-check contract still needs a check named exactly
`e2e`.
> - This pull request shards the real e2e work while preserving a fast
aggregate `e2e` job for branch protection.
> - The benefit is a faster PR workflow without making otherwise-good
PRs unmergeable because a legacy required check disappeared.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this CI follow-up.
Related prior CI work:
- Refs #8360
- Refs #9168
- Refs #9516
Bug report:
### What happened?
Sharding the PR e2e lane directly at the workflow job level changes the
emitted check names to shard-specific names, while existing branch
protection expects a check named exactly `e2e`.
### Expected behavior
The PR workflow should be able to run e2e specs across multiple runners
while still emitting a stable aggregate check named `e2e`.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Open a PR against `master`.
2. Run the PR workflow with the e2e lane split only as a matrix job.
3. Observe that the shard checks complete, but a required check named
exactly `e2e` never appears.
### Paperclip version or commit
Current `master`.
### Deployment mode
GitHub Actions pull request workflow.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/e2e-shard.mjs`, which partitions default Playwright e2e
specs by recorded per-spec duration.
- Added `scripts/e2e-shard-durations.json` with measured e2e spec
durations so the slow smoke-lab spec does not dominate one runner.
- Split the PR workflow e2e lane into two `e2e_shards` matrix jobs and
added a fast aggregate job named exactly `e2e`.
- Added `scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` to lock the shard
partition, ignored-spec sync, manifest coverage, and aggregate
required-check contract.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check upstream/master..HEAD`
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related e2e-shard / required-check
PRs and issues before opening this PR; no direct duplicate was found.
## Risks
Low risk. The main risk is that the duration manifest can drift as specs
are added or runtimes change; missing specs fall back to the median
known duration, and the focused shard test catches empty, overlapping,
or badly imbalanced partitions.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex CLI coding agent, with shell/tool execution and
repository inspection.
## 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 release subsystem uses GitHub Actions dry-run previews so
maintainers can validate stable and canary release behavior before
publishing.
> - Stable release publishing needs a release notes gate so real
`latest` publishes never happen without authored notes.
> - The same gate was also blocking stable dry-run previews, which made
release QA fail before publish-sensitive work could be previewed.
> - This pull request narrows the notes requirement to real non-dry-run
stable publishes.
> - The benefit is that stable dry-run dispatches can preview the
release without same-day notes, while real stable publishes remain
protected.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this release-QA blocker, so the bug is
described inline below.
### What happened?
Stable dry-run release previews fail when the same-day release notes
file is absent. The release script runs the stable notes-file gate
before release preview work even when `--dry-run` is set.
### Expected behavior
`./scripts/release.sh stable --dry-run` should preview the stable
release without requiring `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`. Real non-dry-run
stable publishes must still fail before build/publish work starts when
the notes file is missing.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Check out current `master` before this fix.
2. Ensure the computed same-day stable release notes file does not exist
under `releases/`.
3. Run `./scripts/release.sh stable --skip-verify --dry-run`.
4. Observe that the script exits with `stable release notes file is
required` instead of reaching the release preview plan.
### Paperclip version or commit
Reproduced on `master` at `9a1d4b7983dfd50e8eb40ee9770e44999d405f60`.
### Deployment mode
Built from source / GitHub Actions release workflow.
## What Changed
- Narrowed the stable release notes gate to `channel=stable` and
`dry_run=false`.
- Updated the release script usage note to say the notes file is
required for non-dry-run stable releases.
- Added a targeted Node test covering dry-run allowed behavior and
non-dry-run blocked behavior.
- Stubbed release fixture registry-version checks so the test isolates
the notes gate without hitting npm.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-dry-run-notes.test.mjs` passed
with 2/2 subtests.
- `bash -n scripts/release.sh` exited 0.
## Risks
Low risk. The behavior change only relaxes the notes-file gate for
stable dry-runs. The new test verifies real non-dry-run stable publish
still fails before build/publish work starts when notes are missing.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, with shell/tool execution in a
local repository workspace.
## 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
> - Its PR CI runs the general-server vitest lane pinned to
`maxWorkers=1` and sharded across 3 runners (introduced in #8360)
> - Suites were assigned to shards round-robin by sorted file index, so
shard test time was unbalanced: a recent PR run split 73s / 153s / 115s,
and the heaviest shard made "General tests (server 2/3)" the slowest
check in the whole workflow at 314s wall
> - The slowest shard sets the lane's wall time, so unbalanced
partitions waste the other two runners and stretch the PR critical path
> - This pull request replaces the round-robin assignment with a
deterministic longest-processing-time partition weighted by a checked-in
per-suite duration manifest
> - The benefit is near-even shard weights (projected 113s / 113s / 113s
with the current manifest), taking roughly 40s off the PR critical path
with no reduction in coverage
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #8360 (introduced the 3-way general-server sharding this PR
rebalances)
- No public issue exists. Problem: the general-server test lane's
round-robin shard assignment ignores per-suite duration, so one shard
can carry multiple 30s+ suites while another finishes in half the time;
the slowest shard alone determines the check's wall time.
## What Changed
- `scripts/general-server-shard.mjs` (new): manifest loader and
deterministic LPT (longest-processing-time) partitioner; suites missing
from the manifest get the median recorded weight, and a missing or
malformed manifest degrades to uniform weights so the lane never fails
on stale data
- `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` (new): per-suite
duration manifest sampled from a real PR run (240 suites); the
`$comment` field documents how to regenerate it
- `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: both shard-selection sites (run and
`--dry-run`) now use the balanced partition instead of index round-robin
- `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 6 new tests
covering skew-balance vs round-robin, determinism, median fallback for
unlisted suites, malformed-manifest degradation, manifest coverage of
the current suite set, and real-partition balance
- `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts`:
hardened the `afterEach` sweep — post-run bookkeeping (run-event
records, follow-up wake scheduling) can still insert rows briefly after
a run reaches a terminal status, and a late insert landing between the
`agent_wakeup_requests` and `agents` deletes failed teardown with a
foreign-key violation on the first CI attempt of this PR; the sweep now
retries so a late background write cannot take down the shard
- `release-verify.yml` shares the same runner script and inherits the
balancing with no workflow change
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` — 9/9
pass (run against current master)
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts`
— 6/6 pass against embedded Postgres with the hardened teardown
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 2/2
pass
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --dry-run` with each shard flag
shows every suite assigned exactly once across the 3 shards, with
projected weights ~113s each
## Risks
- Low risk: partition changes which runner executes which suite, not
what runs; a completeness test asserts every suite is assigned to
exactly one shard
- The duration manifest will drift as suites are added/changed; unlisted
suites get the median weight and a coverage test flags when the manifest
covers less than half the suite set, so drift degrades balance
gracefully rather than breaking the lane
> 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
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), extended thinking
enabled, agentic tool use (file edits, shell, test execution) 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude (Paperclip SWE) <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server package ships runtime asset trees used by built-in agents
and onboarding templates.
> - A prior server build omitted those source asset trees from `dist`,
allowing a built artifact to differ from runtime expectations.
> - The copy step is now present, but the existing build-gap gate only
checked TypeScript coverage for packages whose build skips `tsc`.
> - This pull request extends that standing gate so source asset files
under the server runtime asset trees must exist at the matching `dist`
paths after build.
> - The benefit is that future server asset additions fail loudly in CI
instead of silently shipping an incomplete `dist`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### What happened?
After a server build, runtime asset files under
`server/src/built-ins/**` and `server/src/onboarding-assets/**` could be
missing from `dist/` with no build failure. The existing build-gap gate
only checked TypeScript coverage for packages that skip `tsc`; it did
not verify that non-TypeScript source assets were copied to `dist`. A
server build that forgot the `cp -R` step, or that added a new asset
tree without updating the copy command, would produce an incomplete
`dist` without any CI signal.
### Expected behavior
After `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build`, every
non-TypeScript/non-JavaScript source file under `server/src/built-ins/`
and `server/src/onboarding-assets/` must exist at the matching path
under `server/dist/`. If any file is missing, the build-gap gate must
exit non-zero with a diagnostic listing the missing files and the
command to fix them.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Remove a copied runtime asset: `rm
server/dist/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md`
2. Run the guard: `node scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs
--runtime-assets-only`
3. Before this fix: the command exits 0 and the missing file goes
undetected.
### Paperclip version or commit
Reproduced on `master` at `c36f1a4af` (`@paperclipai/server` 0.3.1).
### Deployment mode
Not deployment-specific — the build-gap check runs in CI on any
checkout.
## What Changed
- Extended `scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs` with a source-derived
server runtime asset parity check for non-`.ts`/non-`.js` files under
`server/src/built-ins/**` and `server/src/onboarding-assets/**`.
- Added a guard-only mode, `--runtime-assets-only`, for focused
pass/fail verification after a server build.
- Wired `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` to prepare plugin SDK build
deps, build the server package, then run the existing build-gap gate
plus the new asset check.
## Verification
Pass path:
```text
$ pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps
> @paperclipai/plugin-sdk@1.0.0 ensure-build-deps .../packages/plugins/sdk
> node ../../../scripts/ensure-plugin-build-deps.mjs
$ pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build
> @paperclipai/server@0.3.1 build .../server
> tsc && mkdir -p dist/onboarding-assets dist/built-ins && cp -R src/onboarding-assets/. dist/onboarding-assets/ && cp -R src/built-ins/. dist/built-ins/
$ node scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs --runtime-assets-only
[typecheck:build-gaps] server runtime assets present in dist: 7 file(s)
```
Regression simulation (guard catches the missing file):
```text
$ rm server/dist/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md
$ node scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs --runtime-assets-only
[typecheck:build-gaps] Missing server runtime asset(s) in dist:
- source: server/src/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md
expected dist: server/dist/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md
Run pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build and ensure source runtime asset trees are copied into dist.
```
Standing gate (full end-to-end):
```text
$ pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps
[typecheck:build-gaps] typechecking 4 workspace(s): paperclipai, @paperclipai/plugin-authoring-smoke-example, @paperclipai/plugin-llm-wiki, @paperclipai/ui
[typecheck:build-gaps] server runtime assets present in dist: 7 file(s)
```
## Risks
Low risk. The check only reads source and dist files during the
build-gap gate. The main tradeoff is that the gate now builds
`@paperclipai/server` so a clean checkout has generated `dist` content
to validate.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 based coding agent with repository tool use and
shell 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
- [ ] 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Releases publish the same app and package set that operators
install, so release verification should keep full release-strength
coverage.
> - The release workflow currently verifies stable and canary releases
with one serial job that typechecks, runs all tests, and builds.
> - The PR workflow already proves the test surface can be split into
grouped general suites and serialized shards without changing coverage.
> - This pull request extracts the release verify work into a reusable
workflow and fans out the independent lanes.
> - The benefit is faster stable and canary release verification while
preserving the existing publish and preview gates.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this CI improvement.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above)
**Problem or motivation**
Release verification spends most of its wall time in a single serial
test step even though the same stable test surface is already
partitioned for PR CI. Stable dispatches and master-push canaries
therefore wait on one long runner after setup, typecheck, tests, and
build run sequentially.
**Proposed solution**
Add a reusable release verification workflow with parallel typecheck,
grouped general tests, serialized test shards, and build lanes. Have
both stable and canary release verification call it with the ref they
need to verify.
**Alternatives considered**
Keeping the serial `pnpm test:run` job preserves the old shape but keeps
stable and canary releases waiting on one long runner. Skipping
verification when a source SHA already has green CI would be faster, but
adds stale-check and lookup risk beyond this change.
**Roadmap alignment**
No overlapping item found in `ROADMAP.md`; this is release CI
maintenance.
**Additional context**
The new workflow keeps the release-strength full `pnpm -r typecheck`,
uses the existing stable test grouping/sharding entry points, and leaves
publish/preview jobs unchanged.
## What Changed
- Added `.github/workflows/release-verify.yml` as a `workflow_call`
workflow accepting a `ref` input.
- Split release verification into parallel `typecheck`, `general_tests`,
`serialized_tests`, and `build` jobs with 20-minute lane timeouts.
- Mirrored the PR workflow's stable test partition: `general-server`
shards 1-3, `general-workspaces-a`, `general-workspaces-b`, and four
serialized shards.
- Replaced `release.yml` `verify_canary` and `verify_stable` job bodies
with calls to the reusable workflow while leaving publish and preview
jobs unchanged.
- Added a Node test that guards the release workflow delegation and
split verify surface.
## Verification
- `actionlint 1.7.12 .github/workflows/release.yml
.github/workflows/release-verify.yml`
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check`
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs
./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- Release verification now starts more jobs per release event,
increasing total runner setup/install minutes. This matches the existing
PR CI tradeoff and should reduce release wall time substantially.
- The called workflow checks out the requested ref shallowly. That is
intentional for verify lanes; publish and preview jobs still retain
their existing full-history checkouts.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent in local tool-use mode with shell
execution, repository editing, GitHub connector access, and medium
reasoning.
## 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.
> - Storybook visual baselines protect UI surfaces from unintended
visual drift.
> - Pixel-perfect screenshot baselines are sensitive to OS, font
rasterization, and browser environment.
> - The suite already stores external baseline artifacts and has an
opt-in CI path.
> - Local runs on non-matching platforms can report false-positive diffs
unless the platform lock is explicit.
> - This pull request documents the Linux/Ubuntu baseline constraint and
makes the local static server port explicit.
> - The benefit is clearer visual-review guidance and more predictable
Playwright web server startup.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists.
### What happened?
The Storybook visual baseline suite requires a matching Linux capture
environment for pixel-exact comparisons, but the docs did not clearly
warn local users that non-Linux environments can produce false-positive
diffs. The Playwright web server command also relied on the static
server's default port instead of passing the configured port explicitly.
### Expected behavior
Developers should see clear Linux/Ubuntu baseline guidance before
running the visual suite locally, and Playwright should start the
Storybook static server on the same explicit port that the test config
expects.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Review the Storybook visual docs before this PR.
2. Run or inspect the Storybook visual Playwright config.
3. Notice the missing platform guidance and implicit static server port
coupling.
### Paperclip version or commit
Reproducible on `master` before this branch.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (pnpm dev) / built from source.
## What Changed
- Documents the Linux/Ubuntu-only baseline limitation in the developer
docs and visual-suite README.
- Adds `--port` parsing and validation to the Storybook static server
helper.
- Adds regression coverage for `--port` followed by another flag.
- Passes the Playwright web server port explicitly from the Storybook
visual config.
## Verification
- Passed: `node --check scripts/serve-storybook-static.mjs`
- Passed: `node --test
scripts/__tests__/serve-storybook-static.test.mjs`
- Passed: `node --test
scripts/__tests__/storybook-visual-baseline.test.mjs`
- Greptile: 5/5 with no unresolved review threads after commit
`94a649755a2ae7c4a34a3e8a1f16ec4d26d738fd`.
- Not run: full `pnpm test:storybook-visual`, because it builds
Storybook and runs the browser visual suite; this PR only changes docs
plus server port plumbing.
## Risks
Low risk. The server still defaults to port 6106 when no explicit port
is provided, and invalid port values now fail fast with a clear error
before the Playwright server waits for an unreachable URL.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with local command execution and
repository editing tools.
## 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
> - Its UI is the operator's daily surface: task lists, boards, budgets,
agent status — all built on shadcn components and Tailwind
> - Visual values (colors, spacing, type sizes, radii) were hardcoded at
~1,600 call sites: the same "small gray label" was 9/10/11px depending
on the file, charts disagreed with chips about status colors, two
toggle-switch implementations coexisted in two greens, and there was no
visual regression coverage
> - This made the UI drift-prone and made any restyle a
hundreds-of-files project, which discourages design iteration
> - This pull request extracts visual values into a single token layer
in `ui/src/index.css`, adds a Storybook visual regression suite backed
by external immutable baseline archives, and then applies a deliberate
retune reviewed change-by-change on screenshot diffs
> - The benefit is that Paperclip's look becomes a config surface:
retheming is a token edit reviewed as a snapshot diff, drift is blocked
by a token gate, and future UI PRs can prove exactly what changed
visually without committing hundreds of PNGs
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing public issue covers this work (searched "design tokens",
"visual regression", "design system" across issues and PRs). Related in
spirit: Refs #8982 (theming a hardcoded panel — a one-off instance of
the same problem class this PR addresses systematically).
**Problem (feature-request form):** UI visual values are hardcoded per
call site with no source of truth and no regression coverage;
consistency depends on reviewer memory, and restyling requires mass file
edits.
**Proposed solution (this PR):** a single token layer + enforcement gate
+ externally stored visual snapshot suite, then an intentional restyle
on top of that foundation.
## What Changed
- **Token extraction (zero visual change, machine-verified during
development):** committed codemods (`scripts/codemod-*.mjs`) moved
~1,600 hardcoded color/type/spacing/radius/shadow/misc values into named
tokens in a non-inline `:root` block of `ui/src/index.css`.
- **Visual regression suite:** `pnpm test:storybook-visual` covers 255
stories × light/dark = 510 Playwright screenshots at `maxDiffPixels: 0`,
plus new primitive-coverage stories and deterministic-render fixes.
- **External visual baselines:** committed PNG snapshots were removed.
`tests/storybook-visual/baseline-manifest.json` pins an immutable
archive URL/hash/size/count, and `scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs`
handles `download`, `verify`, `pack`, and trusted maintainer `upload`
flows.
- **Opt-in visual CI artifacts:** added a `Storybook Visual` workflow
that runs on manual dispatch or PRs labeled `storybook-visual`,
downloads/verifies the baseline, runs Playwright, and uploads Playwright
report/test-result artifacts for review. Normal PR runs do not mutate
baseline objects.
- **Token gate:** `pnpm check:token-gates` — zero hex literals, zero
arbitrary bracket values, zero raw font-sizes in `ui/src/components/**`
and `ui/src/pages/**`, with a documented inline allowlist for legitimate
opt-outs.
- **Theme retune (intentional, snapshot-reviewed):** new base theme
values; radius ladder derived from a single `--radius` knob; micro-type
cluster collapsed to a named ladder (`--text-nano/micro/compact` +
Tailwind `text-xs`/`text-sm`); letter-spacing collapsed to named steps.
- **One status-color vocabulary:** charts, quota/budget bar fills,
RUNNING/live chips, and liveness indicators all use the canonical
`--status-*` hues. Light-mode legibility fixes for red alert surfaces
that used dark-tuned text classes.
- **One switch:** `ToggleSwitch` restyled to the registry capsule form,
second hand-rolled implementation removed, and all call sites unified.
- **Docs:** `DESIGN.md` is the design contract; `doc/design/` holds
audit reports, decision logs, and updated guidance for external baseline
review/update workflows.
- Dead code removed (`agentStatusBadge` duplicate map), byte-identical
contrast constants consolidated, semantic renames
(`--project-seed`/`--project-none`, `--liveness-blue`).
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 gates CLEAN during the design-system
run
- `pnpm typecheck` && `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — green
during the design-system run
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-visual-baseline.test.mjs` —
pass after external-baseline rework
- `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit --pretty false --module NodeNext
--moduleResolution NodeNext --target ES2022 --types
node,@playwright/test tests/storybook-visual/playwright.config.ts
tests/storybook-visual/storybook-visual.spec.ts` — pass after
external-baseline rework
- `git diff --check origin/pr/9134..HEAD` — pass after external-baseline
rework
- `find tests/storybook-visual -type f -name '*.png' -print | wc -l` —
`0`
- `node scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs verify` — intentionally
fails closed until the first trusted maintainer publishes the baseline
archive and updates `baseline-manifest.json`
## Risks
- **Large but shallow:** the PR still touches many UI files due to
mechanical token extraction and retune work, but committed PNG snapshot
churn has been removed from the branch.
- **Baseline publication required before the visual suite can pass in
clean clones:** the manifest currently has placeholder archive metadata.
A trusted maintainer must publish the first immutable archive, then
update `baseline-manifest.json`.
- **Rendering platform variance:** the external baseline should be
captured in the documented Linux/Chromium environment. Future CI runs
verify against the pinned archive and fail closed on checksum/count
mismatch.
- **Visual CI is opt-in while stabilizing:** add the `storybook-visual`
label or dispatch the workflow manually to produce downloadable
Playwright report/test-result artifacts.
- **Scheduled follow-ups, deliberately out of scope:** Tailwind palette
classes map to semantic tokens in a dedicated pass; card/pill component
consolidation; ESLint ratchet. Tracked in
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`, Mythos-class tier) with
extended thinking, running in Claude Code with tool use; mechanical
phases delegated to Claude Sonnet subagents. Follow-up external-baseline
rework assisted by OpenAI Codex (`gpt-5` coding agent with repository,
terminal, and GitHub tool use). All bulk rewrites executed via
deterministic, idempotent scripts committed in `scripts/`; intentional
visual changes were human-reviewed on screenshot contact sheets.
## 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 targeted local verification and documented the
intentional baseline-publication failure above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green *(pending new CI run after this
rework)*
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
*(pending review)*
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) and
OpenAI Codex
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - CI runs a Canary Dry Run job that exercises `release.sh`, which
builds the standalone sandbox-provider packages for publish
> - That step (`scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs`) built the
7 provider plugins serially — each doing `rm -rf dist && tsc` — making
it the dominant cost (~49s) inside the slowest PR check (~4.9m wall)
after the general-server lane was already sharded
> - The packages are independent (their own `node_modules` via
`--ignore-workspace`, their own `dist`), so the serial build is pure
latency with no correctness benefit
> - This pull request builds them with a bounded-concurrency pool sized
to the runner CPU count (overridable via
`STANDALONE_BUILD_CONCURRENCY`), buffering each package's output and
flushing it as one block so parallel logs stay readable, and aggregating
failures by original index
> - The benefit is a faster Canary Dry Run / PR feedback loop without
changing what gets built or published
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. Inline feature/perf description:
### Problem or motivation
`build-standalone-public-packages.mjs` builds standalone provider
packages serially, making it the largest single cost inside the slowest
PR check.
### Proposed solution
Run independent per-package builds through a bounded-concurrency worker
pool sized to runner CPU count, with an env override and readable
buffered logs.
### Alternatives considered
Keep the serial build for simpler logs, but that preserves the avoidable
CI latency.
### Roadmap alignment
This is CI maintenance and does not overlap planned core roadmap work.
## What Changed
- `scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs`: replaced the serial
per-package build loop with a bounded-concurrency pool (default = runner
CPU count, override via `STANDALONE_BUILD_CONCURRENCY`); per-package
stdout/stderr is buffered and flushed as a single block; failures are
aggregated by original package index so one failure neither aborts the
others mid-flight nor obscures which package broke.
- `scripts/__tests__/build-standalone-concurrency.test.mjs`: new
`node:test` unit suite covering the pool (limit respected, all items
run, ordered failure aggregation, env-override resolution).
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: wired the new unit test into the policy
job.
## Verification
- `node --test
./scripts/__tests__/build-standalone-concurrency.test.mjs` → 6/6 pass
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check` → OK (29 enabled for CI
publish)
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` → clean
## Risks
- Low risk. Build inputs/outputs are unchanged; only scheduling differs.
The concurrency is bounded by CPU count and overridable; output is
buffered per package so logs remain attributable. If a package fails,
all failures are still reported with their package index.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking with tool
use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change 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
- [ ] 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 is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Every PR runs the `PR` GitHub Actions workflow, whose `verify` gate
fans out into parallel test lanes (general tests, serialized server
route suites, build, typecheck)
> - The `General tests (server)` lane had grown into the run's critical
path: it executed all ~213 non-route server suites serially in a single
job (~7.2m of test time), more than 2x any other job
> - It runs serially because `server/vitest.config.ts` pins `maxWorkers:
1`, so server suites cannot parallelize within a single runner — the
only lever is spreading them across runners
> - This pull request shards that lane into 3 even partitions that run
on separate runners, mirroring the 4-way sharding already used for the
serialized route suites
> - The benefit is the lane drops from ~7.7m to ~2.4m/shard, cutting
overall PR wall time roughly in half (~8.5m → ~4.2m)
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work, so the underlying issue is
described inline following the feature-request template.
### Problem or motivation
PR CI wall time had crept back up to ~8.5m. On a recent fully-green run,
the `General tests (server)` job took 7.72m — more than double any other
job and the clear critical path. Of that, 7.23m was pure test execution
(dependency install was a cached 0.27m). The job ran all server suites
that are not route/authz tests (213 files) one after another, because
the server vitest project pins `maxWorkers: 1`, making these suites
inherently serial within a single runner.
### Proposed solution
Shard the general-server lane across 3 parallel runners — the same
technique the route/authz suites already use — so the suite set is split
into even, deterministic partitions that run concurrently. Add a
regression test that proves the shards always cover the full suite set
with no gaps or overlap.
### Alternatives considered
- **Raise `maxWorkers` for the server project** to parallelize within
one runner — rejected: the server suites share process-level state
(DB/port), which is exactly why `maxWorkers: 1` is pinned.
- **Two shards instead of three** — would leave the lane at ~3.6m, still
above the next bottleneck (Canary Dry Run, ~4.1m wouldn't be the gate).
Three lands the lane comfortably below it.
- **Do nothing / accept the slow lane** — rejected: it gates every PR.
### Roadmap alignment
Developer-experience / CI tooling. Not core product roadmap work; does
not overlap with planned features in `ROADMAP.md`.
## What Changed
- `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: the `general-server` general-test
group now accepts `--shard-index` / `--shard-count`. It enumerates the
full server test set (the whole `server/src` tree, minus the route/authz
suites that already run in their own serialized shards) and splits it
deterministically by modulo. The non-sharded local invocation (`pnpm
test:run:general --group general-server`) is unchanged.
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: the `general_tests` matrix runs
`general-server` as 3 parallel shards (1/3, 2/3, 3/3). Workspace groups
are unchanged. The `verify` gate already aggregates the whole matrix
result, so the required check name is unaffected.
- `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: a `node:test`
suite asserting the 3 shards form a complete, non-overlapping partition
of the general-server set, that no route/authz suite leaks into it, and
that shard flags are rejected for the parallel workspace groups. Wired
into the `policy` job.
## Verification
- New partition test passes locally: `node --test
./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` (3/3).
- Confirmed the 3 shards form a complete, non-overlapping partition of
all 213 files (71/71/71).
- Ran a live thin shard (3 real server suites, including one outside
`__tests__`) — 23 tests passed, confirming positional-include execution
works end to end.
- This PR's own CI is the authoritative check: all three `General tests
(server (n/3))` jobs went green on the prior run, collectively covering
every suite the old single job ran.
## Risks
- Low risk. No product code changes — only test orchestration and CI
matrix. Shard partitioning is deterministic and is now covered by an
automated test that fails if the partition ever develops a gap or
overlap. Modulo-on-sorted-filenames balances duration reasonably,
matching the approach already proven by the serialized route shards.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking + tool use
(agentic coding via Paperclip).
## 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
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — no UI change)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
(inline comments explain the sharding rationale)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending this PR's run)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending review)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Devin Foley
Dotta
Nicky Leach
scotttong