## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Existing adapters already use provider-neutral structured questions
> - Codex emits several provider-specific input and elicitation forms
> - Malformed native forms must fail closed instead of degrading to an
opaque prompt
> - This pull request adds the Codex question adapter without adding the
full driver
> - A later pull request will connect it to provider request handling
> - The benefit is a small compatibility boundary that preserves legacy
question behavior
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` Codex structured input handling.
**Problem or motivation**
Codex user-input and MCP elicitation requests use different shapes. The
runner needs one canonical question set and must map validated answers
back to the correct provider response.
**Proposed solution**
Normalize native forms into `paperclip.question_set.v1`. Preserve
optional answers, select modes, validation bounds, and stable IDs. Map
canonical responses back only after validation.
**Alternatives considered**
Passing provider-native forms through PRP would couple the app to Codex
and would not preserve the existing provider-neutral question boundary.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the Codex-first experimental runner and existing
structured-question compatibility. It does not enable the runner
adapter.
## What Changed
- Added request-kind detection for approval, input, and elicitation
requests.
- Added requestUserInput normalization.
- Added JSON Schema elicitation normalization.
- Added canonical runtime request payloads.
- Added response mapping for Codex answers and MCP elicitation content.
- Added malformed-form and multi-question tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The focused question adapter test has 3 passing cases.
## Risks
The main risk is changing question semantics. Tests verify optional
answers, single and multi select modes, text validation, duplicate IDs,
numeric elicitation, and canonical response mapping.
## 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
f44f5b1ab1