## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Cloud consumes versioned readiness markers for each merged
source commit.
> - Those markers can be published only after the required checks and
artifacts pass.
> - The marker jobs currently wait for the same AWS runner capacity as
builds and tests.
> - A busy builder pool can delay readiness after all required work has
finished.
> - This PR moves the small readiness jobs to GitHub-hosted runners
while retaining every dependency gate.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13326 and #13328.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Time from completed Cloud verification to a deployable marker, and AWS
capacity occupied by artifact polling.
**Current behavior**
In [Cloud readiness run
34711557083](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711557083),
all builds and tests finished at 18:43:05 UTC. The source marker did not
start until 18:44:21, and the deployable marker did not start until
18:44:37. Merge-to-deployable was 11m33s, although the prerequisite work
finished in 9m44s.
**Proposed behavior**
Run the artifact wait and both versioned marker jobs on `ubuntu-latest`.
Keep the compute jobs on the approved post-merge AWS fleet.
**Reason and benefit**
Avoid builder-pool queue delays after verification finishes. This also
removes the long artifact-wait job from AWS capacity. Expected savings
depend on queue depth: the observed run had over 90 seconds of avoidable
marker waiting. The marker commands themselves take only seconds.
**Breaking changes**
Runner placement changes for three bookkeeping jobs. Marker names,
exact-source artifact checks, required verification, and image
verification stay the same.
**Additional context**
Searched the related runner and Cloud readiness work. This addresses
queue time observed after the parallel verification change.
## What Changed
- Place the artifact wait, source-verification marker, and deployable
marker on GitHub-hosted runners.
- Keep all existing job dependencies, source guards, permissions, and
commands.
- Extend routing regressions to enforce this placement and retain
fail-closed readiness gates.
- Document why readiness bookkeeping uses separate runner capacity.
## Verification
- Passed 433 workflow, routing, source-verification, and Cloud readiness
tests with `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs
scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs
scripts/cloud-readiness.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`.
- Passed `actionlint` and `git diff --check`.
- Passed all latest-head CI gates in [run 34712624340, attempt
2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34712624340),
including typecheck, build, browser, Runner, and all general/serialized
tests.
- Attempt 1 had one localhost readiness timeout in an unchanged test. A
single targeted retry passed all 166 files (3,225 tests passed, one
existing skip), including all seven tests in that file. No timeout,
assertion, or application source was changed; the retry is documented in
the PR comment.
- Local full-suite verification is limited by local disk exhaustion; the
focused checks above pass.
- Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 with no unresolved findings.
## Risks
- GitHub-hosted capacity can also queue, but these jobs no longer
compete with AWS build/test demand. The change does not reserve
instances or change box sizes.
- Readiness must still fail if any prerequisite fails. The existing
`needs` relationships and success-only execution are preserved and
tested.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code
execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed
by this environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
0ce7df2648