## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane people use to coordinate AI agents
and their execution environments.
> - Environment realization decides where an agent runs and which
filesystem and toolchain are authoritative.
> - Copy-based realization is unsafe for container-anchored tasks
because absolute paths such as `/app` can point outside the synchronized
tree and task-specific binaries may be absent.
> - That mismatch can let an agent successfully verify work in a phantom
writable path while sync-back silently discards the result.
> - Existing task environments already provide the authoritative
filesystem and toolchain, so they should be executed in place rather
than copied.
> - Copy mode still needs explicit confinement rules so aliases target
the synchronized workspace and unsynchronized writable paths fail
visibly.
> - This pull request adds typed realization metadata, propagates the
authoritative root through orchestration, and teaches Codex to honor it.
> - The benefit is that container-anchored tasks operate on
verifier-visible state with the intended tools, while copy mode remains
safe and backward compatible.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this defect.
GitHub duplicate searches for in-place execution, workspace realization,
and authoritative workspace roots found no related pull request to link.
### What happened?
Environment-backed agent runs were always realized through a copied
workspace. Tasks anchored to absolute container paths could therefore
write outside the synchronized tree, and task-provided toolchains were
unavailable in the copy. A run could report success even though
sync-back discarded its output.
### Expected behavior
Existing task environments should run against their real authoritative
root and toolchain. Copy-mode runs should map declared absolute aliases
into the synchronized tree and reject writable paths that cannot be
restored.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Run a Codex task environment whose required files live under `/app`
or `/workspace` and whose required binary exists only in the task
container.
2. Observe that copy realization changes the effective
filesystem/toolchain or permits writes outside the synchronized root.
3. Complete and verify the task inside the agent sandbox.
4. Observe that the verifier cannot see out-of-tree artifacts or that
task-specific commands were unavailable.
### Reproduction context
- Paperclip commit: `3a16b91217483d2c233926de5b7f7bc3a1077924`
- Deployment: built from source in a task-container execution
environment
- Adapter: Codex local
- Database: not database-related
- Access context: agent execution
## What Changed
- Added typed `copy | in_place` workspace-realization metadata,
authoritative roots, confined aliases, and outbound restore paths to
shared execution-target contracts.
- Selected in-place realization for existing task environments and
skipped archive prepare/restore when the authoritative environment is
used directly.
- Propagated the authoritative root into adapter context so Codex uses
it for cwd and `PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_*` semantics, including ACP
execution.
- Bound copy-mode aliases such as `/app` to the synchronized workspace
and rejected writable out-of-tree paths without explicit restore
mappings.
- Added focused regression coverage while preserving existing copy-mode
archive restore behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/local-process-sandbox.test.ts
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-run-orchestrator.test.ts` — 48 passed,
4 skipped.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY -u
AWS_SESSION_TOKEN pnpm test:run` — passed across all general and
serialized Vitest shards.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- Codex `k=1` acceptance run completed July 24, 2026 at 23:54:30 UTC
with 4 completed, 0 exceptions, and mean reward 1.0: `build-cython-ext`,
`openssl-selfsigned-cert`, `prove-plus-comm`, and `sqlite-db-truncate`
each received terminal grade 1.0 against real task-environment paths and
toolchains.
## Risks
- In-place mode deliberately exposes the authoritative task root to the
adapter; incorrect environment metadata could point execution at the
wrong root. Typed metadata and focused orchestration tests cover
selection and propagation.
- Copy-mode writable-path validation is stricter and may reject
previously accepted unsafe configurations. The rejection is intentional
and produces a visible error instead of silently losing output.
- The acceptance run is focused on four Codex task-environment
workloads, not a broad cross-adapter benchmark. Existing copy-mode
archive tests and the full repository suite remain green.
> 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 CLI coding agent; exact model ID and context-window size
were not exposed to this runtime. Capabilities used: extended reasoning,
repository editing, shell execution, test/build execution, Git, GitHub
CLI, and Paperclip API tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [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>
4e00818574