e11b457fd9
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Paperclip Runner needs a stable list of semantic actions > - Earlier pull requests define the core and collaboration action groups > - The remaining domain and administration actions need the same contract form > - The complete catalog must remain data only until a later pull request binds actions to services > - This pull request completes and validates the canonical action inventory > - The benefit is one frozen source of truth for later discovery and authorization work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** `packages/paperclip-runner` protocol contracts. **Problem or motivation** The runner does not yet have a complete canonical inventory for domain and administration actions. Later authorization code cannot project a stable operation catalog without this inventory. **Proposed solution** Add the remaining action contracts and aggregate all 41 actions. Validate every declared live and scenario projection with its own schema. **Alternatives considered** Binding these actions directly to production services would combine data contracts with authority. This pull request keeps every production service binding unbound. **Roadmap alignment** This change supports the experimental Paperclip Runner. It does not enable the runner or change an existing adapter. ## What Changed - Added 14 domain and administration action contracts. - Added the complete immutable 41-action catalog. - Added validation for live inputs and outputs. - Added validation for scenario inputs and capability-result envelopes. - Kept every production service binding unbound. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - The focused catalog test validates 41 actions. ## Risks Low risk. This pull request adds package-local contract data and tests. It does not authorize an action or change an adapter. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 and repository 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| adapter-utils | ||
| adapters | ||
| db | ||
| google-sheets-mcp-server | ||
| kv-demo-mcp-server | ||
| mcp-server | ||
| paperclip-runner | ||
| plugins | ||
| shared | ||
| skills-catalog | ||
| tailscale-https-broker | ||
| teams-catalog | ||