ora-284-opencode-prompt-pad
193 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin Foley
|
2853a9ae69 |
perf(ci): shard the general-server test lane across 3 runners (#8360)
## 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
|
4518f272b2 |
fix(release): publish all remaining @paperclipai workspace packages from CI + guard unpublishable edges (#8365)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work, distributed primarily via the `paperclipai` npm package and its `@paperclipai/*` workspace packages. > - The release subsystem (`scripts/release-package-*`) decides which workspace packages CI republishes at the unified calver version each release, and `replaceWorkspaceDeps()` rewrites every internal `workspace:` dependency to that calver version at publish time. > - The gap: a package that publishes from CI can declare a `workspace:` dependency on a package that is NOT enrolled for CI publish. The dependency spec gets rewritten to a calver version that is never actually published, so the dependent becomes uninstallable. > - This shipped for real: a recent change made `@paperclipai/server` depend on `@paperclipai/skills-catalog`, but skills-catalog was not on the calver release train — so canary builds after that merge failed to resolve `@paperclipai/skills-catalog@<calver>` and `npx paperclipai@canary run` broke. > - This PR addresses it durably by (a) putting every remaining internal package on the CI release train so no internal dependency can dangle, and (b) adding a fail-fast guard so this class of break can never ship again. > - The benefit is that canary and stable installs resolve all internal dependencies, and any future unpublishable workspace edge fails the release build with a clear, named error instead of producing a broken package. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8327 (introduced the `server -> skills-catalog` runtime dependency that surfaced the gap). No public issue tracks this; describing it in-PR: - **Problem:** After #8327, `npx paperclipai@canary run` failed for builds past the merge because `@paperclipai/skills-catalog` was rewritten to a calver version that was never published (the package was not enrolled for CI publish). Versions before the merge still ran. - **Root cause:** A `publishFromCi:true` package can declare a `workspace:` dependency on a package that is not `publishFromCi:true`; the release-time version rewrite then points at a non-existent published version. ## What Changed - Enrolled every remaining internal package on the calver release train by setting `publishFromCi: true` in `scripts/release-package-manifest.json`: `skills-catalog`, `teams-catalog`, `plugin-workspace-diff`, `plugin-kubernetes`, `plugin-novita-sandbox`. There are now zero `publishFromCi:false` entries. - `skills-catalog`, `teams-catalog`, `plugin-workspace-diff` already existed on npm — CI simply republishes them at calver. - `plugin-kubernetes` and `plugin-novita-sandbox` were not on npm; their one-time first publish was bootstrapped so the `check-release-package-bootstrap` gate passes. - Added `findUnpublishableWorkspaceEdges()` to `scripts/release-package-map.mjs`, wired into `buildReleasePackagePlan()`. The release map build now fails fast (surfaced by the `check` CI already runs) whenever a `publishFromCi:true` package declares a runtime `workspace:` dependency (`dependencies`/`optionalDependencies`/`peerDependencies`) on a non-`publishFromCi:true` `@paperclipai/*` package, naming the offending edge. - Added tests covering positive/negative detection, all three dependency sections, unknown-package edges, off-train edges, and the live manifest. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs` → 9/9 pass (includes a test asserting the live manifest has no unpublishable edges). - `node scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs scripts/release-package-manifest.json` → passes, naming all five newly-enabled packages (all confirmed present on npm). - Confirmed via `npm view` that all five packages resolve on the public registry. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only enrolls already-existing (or freshly-bootstrapped) packages onto the existing release train and adds a build-time validation. No runtime code paths change. The new guard can only *fail* a release that was already going to ship a broken package. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.7 (claude-opus-4-7), extended thinking, with tool use / 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) - [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 - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — no UI changes) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A — no doc-facing behavior change) - [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 |
||
|
Nicky Leach
|
6b45b1559d |
refactor: revert headless Chromium provisioning script (#8362)
Deletes scripts/qa/provision-headless-chromium.sh, reverting PR #8349's host-specific Chromium provisioning helper. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky Leach
|
713b3b08f0 |
chore(qa): add no-sudo headless Chromium provisioning script (#8349)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Visual QA and screenshot-based review depend on a working headless browser in agent sandboxes. > - Playwright can provide the Chromium binary, but some sandboxes lack the host shared libraries that Chromium needs to launch. > - Those sandboxes often do not have sudo, so `playwright install-deps` cannot install system packages. > - This pull request adds a user-space provisioning script for the Chromium runtime dependency closure. > - The benefit is that QA can bootstrap a render-capable Chromium environment without requiring root access or changing app runtime code. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this exact QA provisioning gap. Problem: in no-sudo Linux sandboxes, Playwright's bundled Chromium may fail to launch because the host is missing required shared libraries such as libatk, libcups, libgbm, libpango, and libasound. Expected behavior: QA agents should be able to provision a local prefix that lets Playwright launch bundled Chromium headlessly and render text without root access. Related public PR: #7301 covers broader runtime tooling/dependency setup, but this PR is a focused userspace script for the no-sudo Chromium dependency case. ## What Changed - Added `scripts/qa/provision-headless-chromium.sh`. - The script downloads the dependency closure for Playwright's Ubuntu 24.04 Chromium runtime packages with `apt-get download`, extracts the `.deb` files into a user-space prefix, and emits an env file that sets `LD_LIBRARY_PATH` and `FONTCONFIG_FILE`. - The script also configures extracted fonts and an isolated font cache so headless rendering paints text. ## Verification - Ran `bash -n scripts/qa/provision-headless-chromium.sh`. - The handoff verification states the script was run from a clean prefix on Ubuntu 24.04 arm64 as a non-root user, then Chromium 145 launched headless and rendered text at 1440x900 and 390x844 in light and dark mode. ## Risks Low risk. This adds a standalone QA utility script and does not modify application runtime, package manifests, CI configuration, migrations, or production code. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex, tool-enabled coding agent with shell and GitHub CLI access. The original script was prepared by an agent workflow; Git Expert amended public-facing references and prepared the PR. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
93291df5c8 |
fix(plugins): move dev SDK linking out of plugin postinstall scripts (#8255)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Sandbox-provider plugins (cloudflare, daytona, e2b, exe-dev, kubernetes, modal, novita) and `plugin-workspace-diff` are published as standalone npm packages, but during local dev they need the in-repo `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` symlinked in > - Each of these plugins shipped a `postinstall` lifecycle script that traversed *out* of its own package directory (`node ../../../../scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs`) to do that linking > - The publishable manifest is built by a `prepack` whitelist that drops the `scripts` field, so npm consumers don't see the postinstall today — but that safety property depends entirely on `prepack` running on every publish. A publish that skips lifecycle scripts would ship a tarball whose postinstall escapes its package directory at consumer install time > - This pull request removes the escape-the-package-dir lifecycle script from every plugin source manifest and moves the dev linking to a single root-level postinstall that iterates the excluded plugin directories itself > - The benefit is that plugin tarballs can no longer carry an install-time script that reaches outside their own directory, regardless of whether `prepack` runs ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This is a follow-up hardening change flagged during review of the Novita sandbox provider PR (#7595). **Problem (security):** Excluded plugin packages each carried `"postinstall": "node ../../../../scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs"`. The relative path traverses outside the package root. Today the published manifest is sanitized by a `prepack` whitelist that drops `scripts`, so consumers are unaffected in the normal publish path. The risk is that this is a defense-in-depth gap: if a publish ever skips lifecycle scripts (e.g. `npm publish --ignore-scripts` is *not* used, or a tool publishes the raw manifest), the tarball would ship a postinstall that runs out-of-tree code at the consumer's install time. ## What Changed - Added a single root `package.json` `postinstall`: `node scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs`. - Rewrote `scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs` to iterate the excluded plugin directories itself (`packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/*` + the orchestration smoke example) instead of relying on each plugin to invoke it from its own cwd. Preserves both prior behaviors: leave a real installed SDK dir alone, and skip when already correctly symlinked (idempotent). - Removed `scripts.postinstall` from all 7 sandbox-provider plugins (cloudflare, daytona, e2b, exe-dev, kubernetes, modal, novita). - Removed `scripts.postinstall` from `plugin-workspace-diff` (a pnpm workspace member — pnpm already links the SDK, so the script was a no-op there). ## Verification - `node scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs` from repo root: links the SDK into the excluded plugins and reports skipped (already-linked) dirs; re-running is idempotent. - `grep -r "link-plugin-dev-sdk" packages/plugins/*/package.json packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/*/package.json` returns no matches — no plugin source manifest references the linker any longer. - All affected `package.json` files re-validated as parseable JSON. ## Risks Low risk. Dev-only tooling: the linker only runs at the repo root during local install and only touches `node_modules/@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` symlinks inside excluded plugin dirs. No change to published plugin behavior or runtime code. Worst case if the root postinstall failed to run, local dev of an excluded plugin would not find the SDK symlink — easily re-run manually. ## Model Used Claude Opus (claude-opus-4-8), extended reasoning, with tool use / code execution in an agentic coding 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 OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (added `scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.test.js`, wired into `test:release-registry`) - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — no UI change) - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A) - [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> |
||
|
Alex
|
b18669452f |
Add Novita sandbox provider plugin (#7595)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip already separates agent adapters from execution environments, so agents can run locally, over SSH, or through sandbox providers. > - Sandbox provider plugins let Paperclip add new cloud runtimes without changing each agent adapter. > - Novita Agent Sandbox is a cloud runtime for AI agent workloads with isolated filesystems, command execution, templates, timeout controls, and pause/resume behavior. > - Paperclip currently has sandbox provider examples for Daytona and Cloudflare, but not Novita. > - This pull request adds a Novita sandbox provider plugin using the existing provider-plugin lifecycle. > - The benefit is that Paperclip users can run existing adapters such as Codex, Claude, Gemini, OpenCode, Cursor, or ACPX inside Novita Agent Sandbox environments. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #7596 ## What Changed - Added `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/novita` as a standalone sandbox provider plugin package. - Registered provider key `novita` with `kind: "sandbox_provider"` and `environment.drivers.register` capability. - Implemented Novita environment lifecycle hooks: validate config, probe, acquire lease, resume lease, release lease, destroy lease, realize workspace, and execute commands. - Added config support for `apiKey`, `domain`, `template`, `requestedCwd`, `timeoutMs`, `requestTimeoutMs`, `secure`, `autoPause`, and `reuseLease`. - Added README documentation for setup, configuration, and lifecycle behavior. - Added tests for manifest shape, config parsing, safe shell command wrapping, stdin delimiter safety, and env-key validation. ## Verification From `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/novita`: - `pnpm typecheck` - `pnpm test` The tests avoid live Novita API calls and cover the provider's static contract and command-wrapping behavior. Live end-to-end verification requires a Paperclip instance with the plugin installed and a Novita API key configured as either a Paperclip secret or `NOVITA_API_KEY` in the worker environment. ## Risks - This adds a new direct dependency on the Novita Sandbox JS SDK (`novita-sandbox`). Socket/Snyk should review the package as part of normal dependency checks. - The implementation relies on Novita SDK command execution semantics; live provider behavior should be verified with a real Novita sandbox before marking the plugin production-ready. - `reuseLease` maps Paperclip release behavior to Novita `betaPause()`. If pause is unavailable for a selected template, the plugin falls back to best-effort kill during release. - Low migration risk for existing users because this is a new standalone provider plugin and does not change existing adapters or built-in providers. > 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 GPT-5 Codex via Codex CLI, with repository file access, shell command execution, GitHub CLI/API usage, and local TypeScript/Vitest verification. Web and local documentation context were used for Novita Sandbox SDK/API behavior. ## 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 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 - [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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Jannes Stubbemann
|
c21f70ef1c |
fix: skip gosu when already running as target user (#2908)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The reference container image must be deployable on both Docker Compose (where it starts as root and `gosu`'s a `USER_UID`/`USER_GID` switch) and Kubernetes (where the pod is typically constrained by PodSecurity) > - The Kubernetes operator (paperclipinc/paperclip-operator#45) sets `runAsNonRoot: true`, `runAsUser: 1000`, `allowPrivilegeEscalation: false`, and `drop: ALL` capabilities by default — the unconditional `usermod` + `gosu` flow in the entrypoint requires root + `CAP_SETUID` / `CAP_SETGID`, making the image undeployable on any cluster enforcing baseline or restricted PodSecurity > - Without root, neither the user remap nor `gosu` can ever succeed — so the fix is a runtime branch: non-root starts `exec` the command directly (warning if the runtime UID/GID differs from the requested one), while root starts keep the existing `usermod`+`gosu` flow > - This also covers platforms that assign arbitrary UIDs (OpenShift restricted SCC), which previously crashed with a cryptic `usermod: Permission denied` > - The benefit is one image that works for both deployment shapes with no operator-side workaround — pure superset, no breaking change ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs paperclipinc/paperclip-operator#45 (cross-repo) — the operator's default pod security context (`runAsNonRoot: true`, `runAsUser: 1000`, `allowPrivilegeEscalation: false`, `drop: ALL`) is blocked by this entrypoint behavior. The operator shipped a stopgap (paperclipinc/paperclip-operator#46 lets the CRD override the security context); this PR is the image-side fix that makes the secure defaults work out of the box. Supersedes #2904 (v1 of this branch). No in-repo issue covers this directly — problem described in-PR following the bug-report template: **What happened** The entrypoint unconditionally runs `usermod`/`groupmod`/`chown` + `exec gosu node`, which requires root plus `CAP_SETUID` / `CAP_SETGID` — any non-root start crashes (`gosu` cannot drop privileges; a mismatched UID dies earlier at `usermod: Permission denied`), making the reference image undeployable on clusters enforcing baseline or restricted PodSecurity. **Expected behavior** A non-root container `exec`s the command directly (with a clear warning if its UID/GID differs from the requested `USER_UID`/`USER_GID`, since a remap is impossible without root). The existing root + `usermod` + `gosu` flow is preserved for Docker Compose, where the container starts as root and switches to the requested UID/GID. **Deployment mode** Kubernetes with baseline/restricted PodSecurity and OpenShift-style arbitrary-UID platforms (failing cases); Docker Compose root-start (must keep working). ## What Changed - **`scripts/docker-entrypoint.sh`** — branch on the runtime UID: - **Non-root start** → `exec "$@"` directly. If the runtime UID/GID differs from `USER_UID`/`USER_GID`, print a one-line warning to stderr first (the remap is impossible without root; the warning keeps volume-permission mismatches diagnosable instead of failing cryptically inside `usermod`). - **Root start** → unchanged: `usermod`/`groupmod` remap when requested, `chown` of `/paperclip` when a remap happened, then `exec gosu node "$@"`. ## Verification **Automated:** `server/src/__tests__/docker-entrypoint.test.ts` runs the real entrypoint with `id`/`usermod`/`groupmod`/`chown`/`gosu` stubbed via PATH and asserts all five privilege branches (root+defaults, root+remap, non-root match, arbitrary non-root UID, GID mismatch) — runs in the regular server suite, no Docker needed. **Manual (Docker):** ran the entrypoint on `node:lts-trixie-slim` (the image's actual base) across the full matrix, with `gosu` stubbed to a marker: - [x] Root start, defaults → no remap, `gosu node` invoked (Docker Compose flow unchanged) - [x] Root start, `USER_UID=1001`/`USER_GID=1001` → `Updating node UID/GID to 1001` + `gosu node` (remap flow unchanged) - [x] Non-root `--user 1000:1000` (the operator's `runAsUser: 1000` shape) → silent direct exec, command runs as 1000:1000 - [x] Non-root `--user 1234:1234` (arbitrary UID) → warning `running unprivileged as 1234:1234; cannot remap to requested 1000:1000`, then direct exec (previously: crash) - [x] Non-root `--user 1000:1001` (GID mismatch) → warning, then direct exec - [x] Baseline check: master's entrypoint fails for any non-root start (gosu/usermod require root) End-to-end cluster verification under restricted PodSecurity exercises the same branch as the `--user 1000:1000` case above; the operator repo's deploy is the natural place for that smoke test once this ships in an image tag. ## Risks - **Backward-compatible.** Docker Compose / root-entrypoint path is byte-for-byte the same flow — `usermod`/`gosu` runs whenever the container starts as root. - **Behavior change only for previously-broken starts.** Non-root containers used to crash; they now run. The only observable difference for a *working* deployment is none. - **Mismatched non-root UID/GID warns instead of failing.** Deliberate: the remap is impossible without root, and arbitrary-UID platforms (OpenShift) rely on group-writable volumes; a hard fail would keep them broken. The stderr warning preserves diagnosability. - **No new env vars, no API surface.** Pure entrypoint behavior change gated on the runtime UID. - **Restricted PodSecurity ready.** The non-root branch needs no Linux capabilities — works under `drop: ALL`. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.6; rebase, non-root generalization, and verification matrix by Claude Fable 5 (1M context). ## Checklist - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] Thinking path traces from project context to this change - [x] Model used specified - [x] Checked ROADMAP.md — not in conflict with planned core work (agent-runtime sandbox images use `tini`, no gosu — unaffected) - [x] Tests run locally and pass (new `docker-entrypoint.test.ts` covering all five privilege branches, plus a manual Docker matrix on the real base image; see Verification) - [x] No UI changes - [x] Documented risks above - [x] Will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge Unblocks the default (non-overridden) security context of paperclipinc/paperclip-operator#45 / #46. --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Jannes Stubbemann
|
05ab45225a |
feat(plugin-kubernetes): self-hostable Kubernetes sandbox provider (stage 1/3: plugin package) (#5790)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Sandbox providers are the seam that lets agent runs execute in isolated environments; today the only first-party remote provider is Daytona, a hosted third-party service > - Self-hosters running Paperclip on their own infrastructure (often Kubernetes already) have no first-party way to run agent sandboxes on a cluster they control > - That gap matters for teams with data-residency, sovereignty, or cost constraints who cannot or will not send workloads to a hosted sandbox service > - This pull request adds a Kubernetes sandbox-provider plugin as a standalone, workspace-excluded package: it implements every SandboxProvider hook the Daytona provider does, on infrastructure the operator owns > - The benefit is that any Paperclip deployment with a Kubernetes cluster gets multi-tenant, network-isolated, quota-bounded agent sandboxes with zero new external dependencies ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing issue. Following the feature template: - **Problem:** Paperclip's remote sandbox execution requires a hosted third-party provider. Self-hosters cannot run agent sandboxes on their own Kubernetes clusters with a first-party provider. - **Proposed solution:** A `@paperclipai/plugin-kubernetes` sandbox-provider plugin with two backends: long-lived sandboxes via the [kubernetes-sigs/agent-sandbox](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/agent-sandbox) CRD (multi-command exec, adapter-install pattern) and one-shot `batch/v1` Jobs (stable APIs only, no extra controllers). - **Alternatives considered:** Driving kubectl from a generic shell provider (no lifecycle/lease semantics), or requiring a hosted provider (exactly the constraint this removes). ## What Changed This is **stage 1 of 3** of a staged contribution (direction agreed with maintainers): the plugin package alone. Stage 2 (server integration: lease params, provider registration) and stage 3 (agent runtime images + CI) are companion PRs that will be cross-linked from a comment here. - New package `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/kubernetes` (workspace-excluded, like the path already carved out in `pnpm-workspace.yaml`): src, unit + kind integration tests, operator prerequisite manifests, README, smoke-test guide - Implements the full SandboxProvider hook surface the Daytona provider implements: `validateConfig`, `probe`, `acquireLease`, `resumeLease`, `releaseLease`, `destroyLease`, `realizeWorkspace`, `execute` - Two backends: `sandbox-cr` (default; long-lived pod via the agent-sandbox `Sandbox` CR, supports multi-command exec) and `job` (one-shot `batch/v1` Job; nothing beyond k8s 1.27+ required) - Per-run adapter resolution: one environment serves mixed harnesses; the per-run `adapterType` hint is read through a local optional type extension, so the plugin typechecks and builds against the current plugin SDK and simply falls back to the environment's configured default adapter until stage 2 lands - Exec-env wrapping: the Kubernetes exec API carries no environment, so commands are wrapped to receive the run's env - Fast-upload interception for workspace realization, scoped per lease - Per-tenant isolation: derived namespace per company, RBAC, ResourceQuota, restricted-PSS pod security (runAsNonRoot, drop ALL, seccomp RuntimeDefault, no SA token automount) - Network egress policy in two flavors: native `NetworkPolicy` and `CiliumNetworkPolicy` (FQDN allowlists) - Image allowlist with glob matching, registry override, and per-run image override validation - Per-run Kubernetes Secrets carrying agent credentials, ownerRef'd to the Job or Sandbox CR for cascade GC ## Verification - Standalone build, exactly as the README documents: ```bash cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/kubernetes pnpm install --ignore-workspace pnpm test # 147 unit tests, 17 files, all green pnpm typecheck # clean against the in-repo plugin SDK on master pnpm build # dist/ emitted, manifest + worker entrypoints present ``` - A kind-cluster end-to-end integration test is included (`RUN_K8S_INTEGRATION_TESTS=1 pnpm test test/integration/end-to-end-run.test.ts`) - Beyond CI: this provider has been verified in a production multi-tenant deployment against five harnesses (opencode, pi, codex, gemini, claude code) with real billed runs ## Risks - **Zero behavior change for any existing deployment.** The package is workspace-excluded; nothing in the server imports or loads it until stage 2's integration lands. No existing code paths are touched. - The default `sandbox-cr` backend depends on an alpha CRD (`agents.x-k8s.io/v1alpha1`); the README flags this and the `job` backend uses only stable APIs as a fallback. - Risk surface is confined to deployments that explicitly install and configure the plugin. - The default runtime images (`ghcr.io/paperclipai/agent-runtime-*`) are published by the stage 3 companion PR (#7934); until that lands, deployments must point `runtimeImage` at their own images. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context), extended thinking, with tool use (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 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 (no UI changes) - [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 this push) - [ ] 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 Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
468edd8b22 |
Add workspace file viewer and artifact links (#7681)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is issue-centered, and reviewers often need to inspect files, artifacts, and path references produced during that work. > - Before this branch, workspace-relative paths and artifact file references were not first-class inspectable objects in the board UI. > - Safe file viewing needs shared resource contracts, server-side workspace boundary checks, and UI that opens files without exposing arbitrary host paths. > - The workspace file viewer branch needed to stay as one active PR and be rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` for review. > - This pull request adds the workspace file resource API, issue-page file viewer and browser, markdown file-reference links, and artifact file chips. > - The benefit is that board users can inspect relevant files from issue context while preserving workspace boundaries and auditability. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. Internal Paperclip issues: `PAP-1953`, `PAP-10539`, `PAP-10733`. Problem / motivation: - Board users need to open workspace-relative files mentioned by agents or attached as work-product metadata without switching to a terminal. - The UI needs to support both direct file-path opening and workspace browsing/searching from an issue page. - The server must enforce company access, workspace boundaries, size limits, rate limits, and safe audit logging. Related PR: - Prior closed attempt: #4442 - Single active PR for this branch: #7681 ## What Changed - Added shared workspace file resource types, validators, and workspace-file `resourceRef` metadata validation for work products. - Added server routes/services for resolving, listing, and previewing workspace-relative files with access checks, scan caps, list-specific limits, and audit logging. - Added the issue file viewer provider, sheet, workspace browser, command-palette action, markdown workspace-file autolinks, and artifact file chips. - Updated issue workspace UI and stories/tests for file browsing and workspace file opening. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and updated the existing single PR branch. - Addressed current-head Greptile follow-ups by applying `offset` consistently across search/recent/changed file listings, restoring stopped-service port ownership checks before auto-port reuse, and stabilizing the workspace browser pagination test. ## Verification Current local verification after rebase to `public/master`: - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/work-product.test.ts server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.test.tsx ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts ui/src/lib/workspace-file-parser.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueWorkspaceCard.test.tsx` - 13 files passed, 197 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx` - 1 file passed, 25 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` - 2 files passed, 90 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed. - Confirmed branch is `0` behind and `46` ahead of current `public/master` after rebase and follow-up commits. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `.github/workflows` changes. - Searched GitHub for duplicate or related workspace file viewer PRs/issues; #4442 is the prior closed attempt and this PR is the single active PR for the branch. - No screenshots were committed; the task explicitly asked not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work. Current remote verification on head `a698a7bc10137baf7d25bd5722e1d6e0343387c1`: - Greptile Review - success, 64 files reviewed, 0 comments added, no unresolved Greptile review threads. - PR workflow `verify` - success. - Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, workspace test shards, serialized server suites, Build, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Socket, and Snyk - success. - `security-review` - neutral, with output saying a draft advisory was filed for maintainer review and is not a merge block. - `commitperclip PR Review / review` - cancelled after the security gate detected flags and timed out while creating/reviewing the advisory. I reran it once and it cancelled the same way; no actionable code/test failure was exposed in the job logs. ## Risks - This is a broad UI/server feature PR, so review needs to pay attention to route authorization, workspace boundary handling, and markdown autolink false positives. - Workspace browsing intentionally caps list results and scan depth; very large workspaces may require users to refine search terms. - Remote workspace preview remains unavailable until remote file-access support is implemented. - The neutral commitperclip security-review advisory needs maintainer review, but the check output says it is not a merge block. > 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 coding agent in a Paperclip/Codex local tool-use environment, medium reasoning, with shell/GitHub CLI tool use for branch inspection, verification, rebase, PR update, Greptile review, and CI 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 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 - [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 - [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 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
ce7b49e4f1 |
[codex] Recover duplicate npm provenance canary publishes (#7839)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release workflow publishes canary npm packages on every push to `master` > - The failing canary job built successfully and published several packages before npm failed on `@paperclipai/mcp-server` > - The concrete failure was npm trusted-publishing provenance returning `TLOG_CREATE_ENTRY_ERROR` because an equivalent Sigstore transparency-log entry already existed > - The package version was not visible on npm afterward, so the release script could not safely treat that error as success by itself > - This pull request adds a narrow recovery path for that npm provenance failure and keeps the existing registry verification as the final source of truth > - The benefit is that transient duplicate transparency-log failures do not break canary publication when a package can be republished without provenance or is already visible on npm ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Bug fix, no public GitHub issue found in duplicate search. - What happened: the Release workflow canary publish failed in `publish_canary` after npm returned `TLOG_CREATE_ENTRY_ERROR` while publishing `@paperclipai/mcp-server@2026.609.0-canary.2`. - Expected behavior: canary publishing should either recover from npm's duplicate transparency-log failure when the package can still be published, or fail later in registry verification if the package never appears. - Steps to reproduce: inspect https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/27230012891/job/80411422155 from push `05cb18cf28074a6d1074c7575c5a44133146e368`. - Deployment mode: GitHub Actions Release workflow, npm trusted publishing. - Duplicate search: no open PRs or issues found for `canary publish TLOG provenance release` or the failing run/job IDs. ## What Changed - Added `publish_package_to_npm` in `scripts/release-lib.sh` to wrap canary/stable package publishing. - Detects npm's duplicate Sigstore transparency-log error and checks whether the package version is already visible on npm. - Retries that exact package once with `--provenance=false` when npm hit the duplicate tlog error but the version is not visible yet. - Keeps unrelated publish failures as hard failures. - Added shell-helper tests with fake `pnpm` and `npm` commands, and included them in `pnpm test:release-registry`. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/release-lib.test.mjs` - `pnpm test:release-registry` - Confirmed `pnpm publish --dry-run --no-git-checks --tag canary --access public --provenance=false` is accepted by pnpm 9.15.4. ## Risks - Low risk: the recovery only triggers when npm output contains both `TLOG_CREATE_ENTRY_ERROR` and the duplicate transparency-log message. - Publishing without provenance is a fallback for canary continuity; if npm still does not expose the package, the existing registry verification step still fails the release. - The same helper is used by stable publishing too, but only for this exact npm provenance failure path. > 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`. This is a release reliability bug fix. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; it does not duplicate planned core product work. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5-class model, tool-enabled local shell and GitHub CLI workflow, medium reasoning mode. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
e50666e4c8 |
[codex] Move maintainer task skills under .agents (#7658)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The skills layout separates runtime Paperclip skills in `skills/` from maintainer/agent workflow skills in `.agents/skills/`. > - Three maintainer workflow skills still lived under root `skills/`, making them look like runtime skills shipped through the Paperclip skill path. > - Root `skills/` is documented as reserved for Paperclip runtime skills, so these task-oriented maintainer skills belong with the other `.agents/skills` entries. > - This pull request moves the three requested skill packages, updates the direct smoke path, and adds regression coverage for the maintainer-only skill boundary. > - The benefit is a cleaner skills boundary without changing skill contents or runtime behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Internal Paperclip issue: PAP-10471. No public GitHub issue exists for this repository-maintenance change. Inline feature/enhancement issue description follows the feature request template fields: ### Problem or motivation Root `skills/` is documented as reserved for Paperclip runtime skills, but `terminal-bench-loop`, `paperclip-create-plugin`, and `diagnose-why-work-stopped` lived there even though they are maintainer/agent workflow skills. ### Proposed solution Move those three skill packages to `.agents/skills/`, update the terminal-bench loop smoke script to read the new local path, and cover the moved skill names in the existing runtime-skill discovery test fixture. ### Alternatives considered Leaving the skills in root `skills/` would preserve direct old paths, but it keeps blurring the runtime-skill boundary. Moving them into the app-shipped skills catalog would be the wrong fit because these are maintainer workflow skills, not bundled company skills. ### Roadmap alignment This is a small maintenance cleanup around the existing Skills Manager/workflow-skill organization and does not introduce a roadmap-level core feature. ## What Changed - Moved `terminal-bench-loop`, `paperclip-create-plugin`, and `diagnose-why-work-stopped` into `.agents/skills/`. - Updated the terminal-bench loop smoke script and skill self-check text to use `.agents/skills/terminal-bench-loop/SKILL.md`. - Added regression coverage in `server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts` that places these three skills under `.agents/skills` while asserting runtime discovery still lists only root runtime skills. ## Verification - `pnpm smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill --source-issue-id "$PAPERCLIP_TASK_ID" --run-key PAP-10471-move-skill-path` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts` - `rg -n "skills/(terminal-bench-loop|paperclip-create-plugin|diagnose-why-work-stopped)" . --glob '!node_modules' --glob '!dist' --glob '!ui/dist'` returned no matches. ## Risks - Low risk: this is a file-location change plus direct path/test updates. - Maintainer agents that referenced the old root paths directly will need to use `.agents/skills/...` instead. > 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 coding agent with shell/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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [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 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
20aea356cc |
refactor(deps-dev): bump vitest from 3.2.4 to 4.1.8 (#7581)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Test infrastructure across server, ui, packages/* runs on Vitest > - Dependabot opened a narrow bump (3.2.4 → 3.2.6), but the wider workspace is on 3.2.4 and the major-version bridge to v4 needs a coordinated change set across configs and tests > - Staying on 3.x indefinitely leaves us behind on Vitest 4 (perf, pool, and config improvements) and forces repeated patch-only dependabot churn > - This pull request upgrades Vitest to 4.1.8 across the workspace, updates `server/vitest.config.ts` and `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` for the new API, and adjusts two UI tests for the new assertion semantics > - The benefit is a single, coherent Vitest 4 upgrade that supersedes #7570 and gets us on the supported major line ## What Changed - Bump `vitest` from `3.2.4` to `4.1.8` across root, `server`, `ui`, and all `packages/*` (including plugin examples and sandbox providers) - Update `server/vitest.config.ts` for Vitest 4 config surface - Update `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` to match the new runner behavior - Adjust `ui/src/components/CommentThread.test.tsx` and `ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx` for Vitest 4 matcher/timing semantics - Refresh `pnpm-lock.yaml` ## Verification - `pnpm install` resolves cleanly with the new lockfile - `pnpm -w -r test` (server, ui, packages) runs under Vitest 4.1.8 ## Risks - Major-version Vitest bump: behavioral changes in pools, fake timers, and matcher strictness can surface flake. Test config and the two UI tests were updated to match v4 semantics; broader test runs should be watched on CI before merge. - Supersedes dependabot PR #7570 (3.2.4 → 3.2.6); that PR should be closed. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic) — `claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking, 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Closes #7570 |
||
|
Dotta
|
fff3832a01 |
[codex] Add teams catalog extraction (#7550)
Fixes #7551 ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, and reusable company/team setup is part of making those companies faster to launch. > - The teams catalog work introduces app-shipped team templates that can be browsed, previewed, and installed into a company. > - Catalog installation crosses several contracts: bundled package contents, shared API types, server import/install behavior, CLI workflows, and the board UI. > - Agents also need a safe path through catalog installs: scoped company selection, explicit source policy, approval fallback for agent creation, and preserved catalog provenance. > - This pull request extracts the completed teams catalog branch into one reviewable PR on top of `public-gh/master`. > - The benefit is a reusable teams catalog foundation with server, CLI, package, docs, and hidden UI surfaces kept in sync. ## What Changed - Added the `@paperclipai/teams-catalog` package with bundled/optional team definitions, generated manifest, validators, catalog builder tests, and migration notes. - Added shared teams catalog types/validators plus server routes and services for listing, previewing, and installing catalog teams. - Integrated catalog install with company portability, skill/source policy checks, provenance metadata, origin hashes, target-manager reparenting, and installed/out-of-date detection. - Added CLI `teams` commands and agent-safe company selection behavior, including `company current` and approval fallback for forbidden agent-run installs. - Added hidden Team Catalog UI/API/query surfaces, Storybook fixtures, and targeted UI tests while keeping the UI route out of primary navigation. - Added docs for CLI/company/teams catalog behavior and removed generated screenshot artifacts from the PR diff. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/teams.test.ts packages/teams-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts packages/teams-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-install-no-overrides.test.ts ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/TeamCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/TeamCatalog.test.tsx ui/src/pages/useInstallTeamCatalogEntry.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/teams-catalog typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master` (`78dc3625a`) and `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of `HEAD`. - Confirmed PR diff excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows/*`, generated screenshot images, and screenshot helper scripts. ## Risks - Medium review surface: this crosses package generation, shared contracts, server install behavior, CLI, docs, and hidden UI code. - Catalog install behavior creates agents/projects/tasks/skills and must keep company scoping, permissions, source policy, and provenance checks strict. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repo policy; CI/default-branch automation owns lockfile refresh. - The Team Catalog UI is included but hidden from primary navigation, so future enablement should re-check visual QA before exposure. > 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`. > > ROADMAP checked: this aligns with reusable companies/templates and plugin-adjacent onboarding work. This PR packages work already developed on the Paperclip task branch for review. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 series coding agent in this Paperclip session; exact runtime context window was not exposed. Used shell, git, `gh`, and local test/typecheck tooling. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots, or documented why screenshots are intentionally omitted - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
6ac1a2e91f |
Add workspace runtime kill script
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
dc58544832 | Address dev runner snapshot review feedback | ||
|
Dotta
|
8f25ba6381 | Add dev runner snapshot race regression test | ||
|
Dotta
|
21ca7a5a58 | Fix dev runner snapshot race | ||
|
Devin Foley
|
1f70fd9a22 |
PAPA-430: workspace finalize gates + no-remote-git enforcement (#6969)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents across isolated execution workspaces; the local cwd is the only persistence boundary between runs. > - Workspace lifecycle (worktree_prepare → execute → workspace_finalize) and the wake/accept flow are what guarantee that dependent issues see a consistent worktree. > - PAPA-380 / PAPA-431 / PAPA-432 / PAPA-440 surfaced three holes in that contract: silent env reuse across assignees, dependent wakes firing before finalize, and `issue.interaction.accept` advancing before finalize landed. > - PAPA-441 / PAPA-442 then needed to document the "no remote git" contract and prevent future adapter/runtime code from quietly reintroducing `git push` as a backdoor sync. > - This pull request lands those server fixes, the static `check-no-git-push` enforcement, the AUTHORING.md cross-link, and the Cody-review follow-ups on the PAPA-430 thread. > - The benefit is that finalize is a real barrier — board accepts, dependent wakes, and operator-set env all respect it — and adapter code can't bypass it via raw `git push`. ## What Changed - **server (PAPA-380, PAPA-431):** `execution-workspace-policy` refuses silent env reuse when the assignee's resolved env disagrees with the workspace it would inherit. The inheritance protection is now scoped to the actual inheritance signal — explicit issue-level `environmentId` is honored even when the agent's default env is `null`. - **server (PAPA-432):** `heartbeat.ts` gates dependent wakes on `listUnfinalizedExecutionWorkspaceIds`, and writes a `workspace_finalize` row on the succeeded path. Write failures now surface instead of being swallowed so dependents aren't silently stranded behind a missing row. - **server (PAPA-440):** `issue-thread-interactions.acceptInteraction` adds a workspace_finalize precondition for `request_confirmation` (not `suggest_tasks`). Accept returns 409 if finalize hasn't succeeded for the latest workspace operation. - **ci (PAPA-442):** new `scripts/check-no-git-push.mjs` static check scans `packages/adapters/`, `packages/adapter-utils/`, `server/src/`, and `cli/src/` for any `git push` invocation (string or args-array). Wired into the `policy` PR job and `test:release-registry`. Operators can opt in per-call with `// paperclip:allow-git-push: <reason>`. Release scripts are out of scope by design. - **docs (PAPA-441):** `AUTHORING.md` documents the no-remote-git contract and cross-links the static check so adapter authors learn the rule and the enforcement together. - **review follow-up (PAPA-430, Cody):** three fixes — env resolver bug, accept-gate scope (request_confirmation only), and finalize record write on the succeeded path. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts` → 33/33 pass - `node scripts/check-no-git-push.test.mjs` → check covers string form, args-array form, comment exclusions, and per-line allow-comment. - Manual: server compiles; the policy job runs the check in <1s before heavier jobs. ## Risks - **Behavioral shift in accept:** boards accepting `request_confirmation` while finalize is in-flight now get 409s. This is intentional — they can retry — but it changes timing on a hot path. `suggest_tasks` is unaffected. - **Workspace policy:** the env-reuse refusal is a new error path. Issues that previously silently reused an env from a different-assignee workspace will now fail-loud; the resolver still honors explicit issue-level `executionWorkspaceSettings.environmentId`. - **CI rule:** any future legitimate `git push` in scoped dirs must be marked with the allow-comment, which is the intended ergonomic. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking), via Claude Code in the Paperclip executor adapter. ## 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 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 — server/CI/docs only) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Closes related issues: PAPA-430, PAPA-380, PAPA-431, PAPA-432, PAPA-440, PAPA-441, PAPA-442 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
9eac727cf1 |
[codex] Add skills CLI and catalog management (#6782)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through company-scoped control-plane workflows. > - Agents need reusable, inspectable skills that can be installed, reset, audited, exported, and assigned without bespoke local setup. > - The existing skill truth model needed cleanup so bundled skills, optional catalog skills, runtime skills, and adapter-provided skills have clear provenance. > - Operators also need a practical CLI and board UI for discovering and managing company skills. > - This pull request adds the skills CLI, packaged skills catalog, company skills APIs, and catalog-aware board UI. > - The benefit is a more reusable Paperclip company setup where skills are portable, auditable, and easier for operators and agents to manage. ## What Changed - Added `paperclipai skills` CLI commands and coverage for catalog listing, installing, resetting, and inspecting company skills. - Added a packaged `@paperclipai/skills-catalog` workspace with bundled and optional skill content plus validation/build tests. - Added shared company-skill types and validators used across CLI, server, and UI contracts. - Added server catalog APIs/services for company skill catalog operations, reset semantics, audit behavior, and portability provenance. - Updated adapter skill handling so runtime/catalog provenance remains explicit across local adapters. - Added board UI support for browsing and managing catalog-backed company skills. - Updated docs for the skills CLI/catalog flow and the company skills Paperclip skill reference. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or migration files are included in the final PR diff. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/skills.test.ts packages/skills-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts packages/skills-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/company-skill.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/plugins/create-paperclip-plugin/src/entrypoints.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-catalog-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts`. - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "default branch|origin/master|symbolic-ref"`. - Attempted: full `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts`. Four provisioning tests failed while seeding an isolated worktree database from the local Paperclip instance because the local plugin schema dump contains a duplicate-column foreign key (`plugin_content_machine_18a7bc327b.content_case_signals`). The default-branch tests touched by the rebase conflict passed in the focused run above. - Checked final diff: no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, no `.github/workflows`, and no migration-file changes relative to `master`. ## Risks - Medium: this is a broad skills/catalog change touching CLI, server APIs, shared contracts, adapter skill sync, and UI. - Catalog validation and reset semantics need careful reviewer attention because they affect reusable company setup and portability. - No database migrations are included in this PR, so there is no migration ordering/idempotency risk in the final diff. - No lockfile is included by design; dependency resolution will be handled by the repository lockfile workflow. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, running in Paperclip via the `codex_local` adapter with shell, git, GitHub CLI, and code-editing tool access. Exact hosted model build/context-window metadata is not exposed in this runtime. ## 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 run targeted tests locally and documented the local workspace-runtime seed failure above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, screenshots were intentionally omitted per PAP-10124 instructions; UI behavior is covered by tests and reviewer inspection - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
8da50dbcf8 |
[codex] Add private browser first-admin claim flow (#6755)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Fresh self-hosted deployments need an operator path before any invite exists. > - Umbrel installs are private LAN deployments, so a one-time browser claim is appropriate only when the deployment is private and unclaimed. > - Public deployments and installs with active invites must keep the existing invite-only model so admin creation is not exposed broadly. > - GitHub PR #2927 established the useful direction, but it needed to be adapted onto current `master` rather than merged as-is. > - This pull request adds that adapted private-only claim flow across server, UI, docs, and regression coverage. > - The benefit is that a fresh private Umbrel-style install can be claimed from the browser without weakening public deployment access. ## What Changed - Added a first-admin claim service and access route support for one-time admin claim eligibility on private unclaimed deployments. - Updated the bootstrap/access UI so eligible private installs show a setup claim path, while public and invited deployments keep invite-first behavior. - Added a bootstrap-pending setup UX lab covering claim, invite, public, and signed-in access states. - Updated deployment and local development docs for authenticated private/public behavior and the Umbrel-style claim path. - Added server and UI regression tests for private claim, public no-claim, active invite fallback, existing board/no-access flows, and health exposure reporting. - Stabilized PR handoff verification by serializing the aggregate server Vitest workspace run, forcing `NODE_ENV=test`, and relaxing the heartbeat batching test around legitimate recovery follow-up runs. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm vitest --run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest --run server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts` - `pnpm test:run` - QA validation: PAP-10115 passed browser validation with screenshots for private fresh install claim, active invite versus claim conflict, public invite-only/claim-absent behavior, existing invite fallback, and normal board/no-access flows. - GitHub closeout: issue #2579 and PR #2927 were updated with the accepted direction: adapt the implementation, do not direct-merge #2927 as-is. ## Risks - The claim endpoint must remain private-only and one-time; a regression here could expose admin creation on public deployments. - Existing invite behavior must remain intact for public deployments and installs that already have an active invite. - The stable Vitest harness now serializes the aggregate server workspace group; this is slower, but it avoids DB-backed suite collisions under root workspace mode. > 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`. > > ROADMAP.md checked: this is a scoped deployment bootstrap/access fix and does not duplicate a listed roadmap project. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` for product engineering, implementation, and verification, with tool-enabled local code execution. Paperclip QA browser validation was performed in PAP-10115 by the assigned QA agent; exact adapter model metadata for that QA run is not exposed in this PR context. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
f257530537 |
[codex] UI and dev ops quality-of-life (#6384)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip operators spend most of their time scanning the board, inbox, sidebar, and local dev status surfaces > - Small UI and dev-ops frictions make repeated operator workflows feel slower than they need to be > - The working branch contained several independent quality-of-life improvements mixed with larger cloud work > - Grouping these smaller UI/dev-ops changes together keeps review overhead reasonable without merging them into feature PRs > - This pull request collects the operator-facing QoL polish into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a cleaner board navigation and local dev recovery experience without depending on cloud upstream sync ## What Changed - Relaxed forced 44px touch targets for small inline widgets. - Fixed mobile mention menu scrolling and sidebar spacing on touch/mobile layouts. - Synced inbox hover state with j/k selection. - Moved plugin sidebar entries into the Work section. - Added manual dev-server restart action/banner behavior. - Logged plugin bridge 502 causes for better diagnosis. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/components/DevRestartBanner.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/dev-server-status.test.ts server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` initially failed only because plugin SDK `dist` was not built in the fresh worktree. - Rerun after build: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` passed. - The remaining targeted UI/dev-server tests passed on the first post-install run. ## Visual Evidence - Sidebar layout and plugin Work section:  - Inbox/task row selection and hover-state surface:  - Dev restart banner desktop:  - Dev restart banner mobile:  ## Risks - Mostly UI/dev ergonomics with low data risk. - Sidebar and inbox changes touch frequently used navigation surfaces, so visual review on desktop/mobile is still useful. > 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-based coding agent with local shell/git/tool use. Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the local Paperclip adapter runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
988689947a |
fix(release): publish modal plugin from ci (#6290)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip keeps its core release process declarative through
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json`, which decides which packages CI
is allowed to publish.
> - The Modal sandbox provider now exists as a first-party plugin
package under `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/modal`.
> - The original Modal PR intentionally left `publishFromCi` disabled
until the package had been published and the registry bootstrap concern
was cleared.
> - The latest reviewer comment confirms that bootstrap step is
complete, so the remaining gap is only release automation configuration.
> - This pull request flips the Modal manifest entry to `publishFromCi:
true` so future CI-driven releases can publish
`@paperclipai/plugin-modal` the same way the other releasable packages
do.
> - The benefit is that Modal releases no longer require a manual
exception in the release pipeline.
## What Changed
- Updated the `@paperclipai/plugin-modal` entry in
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json` to set `publishFromCi` to
`true`.
## Verification
- Ran `node -e 'const
m=require("./scripts/release-package-manifest.json"); const
e=m.find(x=>x.name==="@paperclipai/plugin-modal");
if(!e||e.publishFromCi!==true){throw new Error("modal publishFromCi not
true")}; console.log(JSON.stringify(e))'`
## Risks
- Low risk. This only changes release-manifest metadata; the main
failure mode is CI attempting to publish the Modal package before
registry credentials or release conditions are ready.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex local agent, GPT-5-based coding model in the Codex
runtime (exact deployment model ID not exposed in this workspace), with
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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
|
||
|
Devin Foley
|
4b1e92a588 |
feat(plugins): add Modal sandbox provider plugin (#6245)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through company-scoped control-plane workflows and extensible runtime integrations. > - Sandbox providers are part of that extension surface because they let agents execute isolated work without baking each provider into the core server. > - Modal already offers managed sandboxes with filesystem, process, timeout, and networking controls that map onto Paperclip's sandbox provider contract. > - The repo did not have a Modal provider plugin, so teams wanting Modal-backed sandboxes had no first-party integration path. > - This pull request adds a standalone `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/modal` plugin that implements the provider contract, worker entrypoint, docs, and tests. > - The benefit is that Modal can now be installed as a provider plugin without expanding the core control-plane surface area. ## What Changed - Added a new `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/modal` package with the plugin manifest, worker entrypoint, and exported plugin surface. - Implemented Modal-backed sandbox lifecycle support for creation, command execution, file operations, networking options, termination, and metadata translation. - Added focused Vitest coverage for config validation, env handling, lifecycle flows, networking behavior, and error mapping. - Documented installation, configuration, and usage requirements in the plugin README. - Removed misleading `MODAL_TOKEN_*` fallback behavior so authentication relies on supported Modal credentials only. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - `cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/modal && pnpm test` ## Risks - Low to medium risk: this is isolated to a new plugin package, but runtime behavior still depends on live Modal account credentials and service-side sandbox semantics. - Modal's current docs target a newer Node baseline than the repo default, so the first live install should confirm credential loading and sandbox startup behavior in a real Modal workspace. - No UI or schema changes are included in this PR. > 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 via Paperclip `codex_local` agent (GPT-5-class Codex coding model; exact backend model ID is not exposed by the runtime), with tool use, shell execution, and code-editing capabilities 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
5071c4c776 |
[codex] Add workspace diff viewer plugin (#6071)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators need to inspect what agents changed inside execution and project workspaces. > - The existing workspace detail views did not provide a first-party rich diff surface for staged, unstaged, head, renamed, binary, oversized, and untracked changes. > - The plugin system is the intended extension point for optional rich UI surfaces. > - This pull request adds a workspace diff plugin plus host services and shared contracts so Changes tabs can render workspace diffs through plugin slots. > - The diff-renderer dependency should stay owned by the plugin package rather than the core UI app. > - The dependency surface must stay aligned with repository PR policy, including intentionally omitting `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the PR. > - The benefit is a more reviewable workspace surface without hard-coding the renderer into every page. ## What Changed - Added `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`, including diff normalization, plugin manifest/worker/UI entrypoints, and focused plugin tests. - Kept `@pierre/diffs` scoped to `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`; removed the core UI lab diff-renderer surface and direct UI package dependency. - Added shared workspace diff types and validators, plus plugin SDK surface for workspace diff host services. - Added server workspace diff service support and route coverage for execution/project workspace diff flows. - Wired Execution Workspace and Project Workspace Changes tabs to load the diff plugin, including loading/error fallback behavior. - Added UI tests and fixtures for the Changes tabs and plugin bridge behavior. - Added the new plugin package manifest to the Docker deps stage so PR policy can validate dependency coverage. - Addressed review hardening around empty untracked patches, workspace path exposure, project workspace read capability checks, and default base refs. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff test` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/workspace-diff.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-diff-service.test.ts ui/src/pages/ProjectWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` - Browser screenshot captured from the local worktree dev server: https://files.catbox.moe/ofdpsp.png - Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master`, `.github/workflows/pr.yml` is not included in the PR diff, `ui/package.json` is not included in the PR diff, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the PR diff. ## Risks - Medium UI integration risk: the Changes tab depends on the plugin slot and host diff service path. - Medium dependency risk: this adds `@pierre/diffs` in the plugin package, but `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally omitted per packaging instructions because repository automation manages lockfile updates. - Current CI blocker: downstream frozen installs fail until the repository policy path for new plugin package dependencies is chosen. - Diff rendering edge cases are covered for common working-tree and head diff states, but very large repositories may still expose performance limits. - No migrations are included. > 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 model, tool-enabled local execution environment. Exact context window was not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
7bbdfb69df |
[codex] Enable Grok adapter canary publishing (#6154)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip publishes its CLI, server, UI, and adapter packages through the shared release workflow. > - Canary releases are driven by the GitHub release workflow on pushes to `master`. > - The release workflow does not publish every public package automatically; it uses `scripts/release-package-manifest.json` as the CI enrollment source of truth. > - The Grok adapter is public and already present in the manifest, but its `publishFromCi` flag was still disabled. > - Because of that flag, normal canary publishes skipped `@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local` even when the main package received a canary. > - This pull request enables Grok in the release manifest so future canary runs include it. > - The benefit is that Grok adapter canaries stay aligned with the rest of the package release set. ## What Changed - Set `packages/adapters/grok-local` / `@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local` to `publishFromCi: true` in `scripts/release-package-manifest.json`. ## Verification - `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check` - `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs list | grep '@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local'` - `pnpm test:release-registry` ## Risks - Low risk: this is a release manifest-only change. - Future canary releases will attempt to publish `@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local`; this assumes the package remains publishable and trusted publishing/package access are correctly configured for the existing npm package. > 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-based coding agent with shell, git, and GitHub 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
81d18f2d77 |
ci: speed up PR verify workflow (#6137)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a control-plane repo that
relies on GitHub Actions as part of its release and verification safety
net.
> - The PR workflow in `.github/workflows/pr.yml` is the core CI path
protecting pull requests before merge.
> - Baseline measurement work in [PAPA-335](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-335)
showed the old single `verify` job was the critical-path bottleneck,
with general tests and build serialized together.
> - Follow-up implementation in [PAPA-338](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-338) and
[PAPA-339](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-339) split that work into parallel lanes
and removed redundant clean-runner prebuild work.
> - [PAPA-340](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-340) now needs real post-change PR
workflow evidence, not local inference, to compare against the May 15,
2026 baseline and decide whether phase-2 work is still justified.
> - This pull request publishes the already-implemented CI speedup
branch so GitHub can run the actual `PR` workflow against it.
> - The benefit is that CI timing decisions are based on measured runs
from the exact workflow shape we intend to ship.
## What Changed
- Split the PR workflow so `policy` fans out into separate `Typecheck +
Release Registry`, grouped `General tests`, and `Build` jobs.
- Kept the serialized server matrix, canary dry run, and e2e jobs intact
while removing the old monolithic `verify` bottleneck.
- Reworked grouped general-test execution in
`scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` so the workflow can run balanced
non-serialized lanes.
- Replaced redundant clean-runner prebuild gates with the idempotent
`ensure-build-deps` path used by the relevant CI entrypoints.
## Verification
- `ruby -e "require 'yaml'; YAML.load_file('.github/workflows/pr.yml');
puts 'yaml-ok'"`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-server --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-a --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-b --dry-run`
- `pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-workspaces-b`
- `pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-workspaces-a`
- `pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-server`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-hello-world-example typecheck`
## Risks
- Required-check and branch-protection settings may still reference the
old single `verify` job name.
- Parallel CI lanes can expose hidden ordering assumptions or
clean-runner bootstrap gaps that local grouped dry-runs did not surface.
- Because the branch is behind current `master`, merge conflicts or
unrelated upstream drift could affect the measured runtime until the
branch is rebased.
> Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this work is CI throughput maintenance for the
existing PR verification path, not duplicate feature work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local`, GPT-5-class coding agent
with repository read/write, shell execution, and GitHub CLI/tool use.
The runtime does not expose a more specific backend model ID in-session.
## 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 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
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
Devin Foley
|
ab8b471685 |
Add built-in grok_local adapter (#6087)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so adapter quality directly affects what runtimes the control plane can supervise. > - Local CLI adapters are one of the core execution surfaces because they turn real coding tools into Paperclip-managed employees with heartbeats, transcripts, and reviewability. > - Grok Build was installed on the Paperclip host, but Paperclip had no built-in `grok_local` adapter, so the runtime could not be configured through the normal server/UI/CLI adapter path. > - That gap needed to be closed with the same built-in registry, environment diagnostics, transcript parsing, and skill/instructions behavior that the other local adapters already rely on. > - After the initial adapter landed, a real follow-up run showed that Grok streaming text was being rendered one fragment per line, which made transcripts harder to read even though the runtime itself was working. > - This pull request adds the built-in `grok_local` adapter end-to-end and then fixes the transcript parser so streamed Grok output is coalesced into readable assistant/thinking blocks. > - The benefit is that Grok Build becomes a first-class Paperclip runtime with a usable operator experience instead of a partially wired runtime with noisy transcript output. ## What Changed - Added a new built-in `@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local` package with server, UI, and CLI entrypoints. - Implemented Grok execution, session handling, environment diagnostics, config building, skill syncing, and parser coverage inside the new adapter package. - Registered `grok_local` across the built-in adapter inventories and capability/display metadata in server, UI, CLI, and shared constants. - Added adapter route coverage for the new built-in type. - Fixed Grok transcript readability by emitting streamed `text` and `thought` fragments as deltas so the shared transcript builder coalesces them into readable message blocks. - Added regression tests for the Grok parser and transcript coalescing behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run packages/adapters/grok-local/src/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts ui/src/adapters/transcript.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-grok-local build` - Manual runtime verification on the Paperclip host during implementation and follow-up review: - confirmed the Grok CLI was installed and authenticated - confirmed the worktree dev server could be restarted cleanly and health-checked after the parser follow-up - No screenshots attached. This change is primarily adapter plumbing plus transcript formatting behavior; reviewers can verify via the Grok-backed run surfaces directly. ## Risks - This adds a new built-in adapter, so any missed registration surface could create inconsistencies between server, UI, and CLI behavior. - The adapter depends on Grok Build's current event/output shape; if upstream Grok streaming JSON changes, transcript parsing or session extraction may need follow-up updates. - The transcript readability fix intentionally changes how Grok fragments are grouped, so any downstream code that implicitly expected one entry per fragment would behave differently. > 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 via Paperclip `codex_local` agent runtime. - GPT-5-class coding model with tool use, shell execution, file editing, and repo inspection enabled. - Exact backend model ID/context window were not surfaced to the agent in this Paperclip session. ## 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 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 - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
4142559c37 |
[codex] Add blocked inbox attention view (#5603)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through company-scoped issues, comments, approvals, and execution workspaces. > - Operators need the Inbox to show not only active work, but also blocked work that may need human or agent attention. > - The existing inbox experience did not have a dedicated blocked-work surface, so blocked tasks were harder to triage and resume deliberately. > - Backend consumers also needed a compact attention signal that distinguishes actionable blockers from covered or waiting blocker states. > - This pull request adds a Blocked Inbox tab backed by issue blocker-attention metadata, shared validators, and UI helpers. > - The benefit is a clearer triage path for stalled or blocked Paperclip work without exposing external wait internals in the operator-facing UI. ## What Changed - Added shared issue blocker-attention types, validators, and exports for the API/UI contract. - Added backend blocker-attention computation and issue route support for blocked inbox data. - Added the Blocked Inbox tab, blocked reason chips, filtering/search UI, responsive layouts, and Storybook stories. - Updated inbox helpers and page behavior so toolbar controls only appear where they apply. - Added coverage for shared validators, server blocker-attention behavior, blocked inbox UI helpers/components, and the Inbox page. - Added a screenshot helper script for the blocked inbox Storybook stories. - Addressed Greptile feedback by making urgency sorting deterministic for null stop times, avoiding full blocked-inbox list enrichment for counts, and hardening the screenshot helper. ## Verification - Rebased the branch cleanly onto `public-gh/master`. - Confirmed the diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Confirmed the diff does not include database migration files. - Ran `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts ui/src/components/BlockedInboxView.test.tsx ui/src/components/BlockedReasonChip.test.tsx ui/src/lib/blockedInbox.test.ts ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`. - Ran `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`. - Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is scoped inbox/operator triage work and does not duplicate a listed roadmap feature. - Greptile Review is green on the latest head and all four Greptile review threads are resolved. - GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head: policy, security/snyk, e2e, verify, Canary Dry Run, Greptile Review, and serialized server suites 1/4 through 4/4. ## Risks - Medium review surface because this touches the shared issue contract, server issue services, and the Inbox UI together. - Blocker-attention classification may need product tuning after operators use it on real blocked queues. - UI screenshots were not attached in this PR-opening pass; the branch includes `scripts/screenshot-blocked-inbox.mjs` and Storybook stories for visual capture. > 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-based coding agent with shell, git, GitHub CLI, GitHub connector, and Paperclip API tool use. Reasoning mode: medium. Context window: not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 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 - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
b947a7d76c |
[codex] Improve local plugin development workflow (#5821)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies. > - Plugins are the extension point for adding capabilities without expanding the core product surface. > - Local plugin development needed a tighter CLI-first loop so plugin authors can scaffold, run, install, inspect, and reload plugins without reaching into internal package paths. > - The server plugin install path also needed local-path handling that keeps plugin identity, dashboard routes, and development watchers coherent. > - This pull request adds the CLI scaffold/install workflow, fixes the server and SDK edge cases that blocked that loop, and updates the agent-facing plugin creation skill and docs. > - The benefit is that contributors can develop plugins from local folders with a documented, repeatable happy path. ## What Changed - Added `paperclipai plugin init` coverage and CLI wiring for local plugin scaffolding. - Improved local plugin install handling, plugin key route resolution, dashboard capability behavior, and dev watcher startup/reload behavior. - Fixed plugin SDK worker entrypoint validation for symlinked package layouts. - Added targeted tests for plugin init, server plugin authz/watcher behavior, SDK worker host validation, and the authoring smoke example. - Added a short local plugin development guide and refreshed the plugin authoring guide plus `paperclip-create-plugin` skill instructions. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/create-paperclip-plugin typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project paperclipai cli/src/__tests__/plugin-init.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/plugin-sdk packages/plugins/sdk/tests/worker-rpc-host.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/plugin-dev-watcher.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm --dir packages/plugins/examples/plugin-authoring-smoke-example test` - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the PR diff. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches plugin install routing, CLI command behavior, and the local development watcher. - Local path plugin installs execute trusted local code by design; the new docs call out that trust boundary. - No database migrations are included. > 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 coding agent, tool-enabled local shell and git workflow, medium reasoning effort. Context window details were not exposed in this runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge UI screenshots: not applicable; this PR changes CLI/server/plugin docs and tests, not board UI rendering. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
0808b388ee |
[codex] Add source-scoped recovery actions (#5599)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness. > - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues, blockers, and comments. > - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue. > - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution outcome. > - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions. > - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path. ## What Changed - Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared types/constants/validators, and an idempotent `0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master` migrations. - Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes. - Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked, cancelled, or false-positive outcomes. - Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked without a blocker selection path. - Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices, active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage. - Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership, races, stale comments, and UI behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 5 files, 72 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering check. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - UI states are available in `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`. ## Risks - Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in new places. - Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after `master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for anyone who previously applied the old branch-local `0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration. - Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be watched in CI and Greptile review. > 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 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git, GitHub, and local test execution. Context window not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
eaa80cf88b |
Enable CI publishing for cursor-cloud, cloudflare, and exe.dev release packages (#5728)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents, and its release flow depends on explicit package enrollment for automated publishing. > - The release registry tooling uses `scripts/release-package-manifest.json` as the source of truth for which public packages CI is allowed to publish. > - The cursor cloud adapter plus the Cloudflare and exe.dev sandbox plugins are public packages that now need to ship through the normal CI release path. > - Leaving those entries at `publishFromCi: false` keeps release automation and registry validation out of sync with the intended package set. > - This pull request updates only those three manifest entries and leaves the release tooling itself unchanged. > - The benefit is that CI release enrollment now matches the packages we intend to publish, with the existing manifest checks continuing to guard correctness. ## What Changed - Enabled CI publishing for `@paperclipai/adapter-cursor-cloud` in `scripts/release-package-manifest.json`. - Enabled CI publishing for `@paperclipai/plugin-cloudflare-sandbox` in `scripts/release-package-manifest.json`. - Enabled CI publishing for `@paperclipai/plugin-exe-dev` in `scripts/release-package-manifest.json`. ## Verification - `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check` - `pnpm test:release-registry` ## Risks - Low risk. This is a manifest-only change, but a wrong enrollment flag would affect release automation, so the release-registry checks are the main guardrail. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.4 via Paperclip `codex_local` (`adapterConfig.model: gpt-5.4`), high reasoning effort, with tool use and shell/code execution. The adapter does not expose a separate context-window value in 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
5a64cf52a1 |
Add exe.dev sandbox provider plugin (#5688)
> _Stacked on top of #5685 → #5686 → #5687. Diff against master includes commits from earlier PRs in the stack — review focuses on the two new commits (`Add long-secret textarea variant to JsonSchemaForm SecretField` + `Add exe.dev sandbox provider plugin`)._ ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Each agent runs in a sandbox environment, and operators choose the provider — today E2B, Daytona, and (in this stack) Cloudflare > - exe.dev offers per-VM sandboxes via a small CLI / HTTP API — useful for operators who want full Linux VMs (vs container/runtime-only sandboxes) > - The plugin shape mirrors the e2b plugin: lifecycle hooks (`new`, `ls`, `rm`) drive exe.dev's CLI; SSH plumbing handles direct VM access for adapters that need it > - exe.dev VMs come up bare — `node` is not preinstalled, so the Paperclip sandbox callback bridge (a Node script) needs Node 20 installed at VM init via `--setup-script`. The plugin defaults the setup script to a Nodesource install > - The auth field accepts long SSH private keys, which need a textarea variant of the existing `SecretField` in `JsonSchemaForm` — added behind a `maxLength > THRESHOLD` opt-in so other secret fields are unaffected > - The benefit is that operators get exe.dev as a fully working sandbox provider out of the box, with no manual VM provisioning required ## What Changed **Shared UI support (`Add long-secret textarea variant to JsonSchemaForm SecretField`):** - `ui/src/components/JsonSchemaForm.tsx` + new `JsonSchemaForm.test.tsx`: when a secret-formatted field declares `maxLength` larger than the existing single-line threshold, render a monospace textarea instead of the masked input. Short secrets (API keys, tokens) keep the existing masked-input + show/hide toggle behavior. **The exe.dev plugin (`Add exe.dev sandbox provider plugin`):** - `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/exe-dev/`: plugin entry, manifest, plugin runtime, README, and 19-test Vitest suite. - Manifest fields: API token (with `secret-ref` + `/exec` permission notes — needs `new`, `ls`, `rm`), API URL override, optional SSH username, optional SSH private key (uses the new `JsonSchemaForm` textarea variant via `maxLength: 4096`), optional SSH identity-file path, optional setup script. - Default `--setup-script` is a Nodesource Node 20 install. exe.dev VMs come up bare and the Paperclip sandbox callback bridge is a Node script, so without Node preinstalled the bridge can't start. Operators can override by supplying their own setup script. - `runLifecycleCommand` redacts env values from the executed command before surfacing it in error messages, so secrets passed via `--env=KEY=VALUE` don't leak into operator-visible failures. - The plugin distinguishes exe.dev's SSH onboarding failures (`Please complete registration by running: ssh exe.dev`) from general SSH failures and surfaces a clear remediation message. - `scripts/release-package-manifest.json`: register the new plugin for CI publish alongside the existing daytona / e2b providers. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run --no-coverage ui/src/components/JsonSchemaForm.test.tsx` - `(cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/exe-dev && pnpm test)` — 19 passing For an operator-side smoke test: 1. Get an exe.dev API token with `/exec` permission for `new`, `ls`, `rm`. 2. Register the plugin in your Paperclip instance, configure an environment with the token. 3. Create a sandbox env whose provider is `exe-dev`, then run a Codex or Claude job against it. The default Node 20 setup script should bring the VM up automatically. ## Risks - Adds a new sandbox provider plugin that follows the existing daytona / e2b shape; behavior on existing providers is unchanged. - The `JsonSchemaForm` textarea variant only engages for fields that opt in via `maxLength` larger than the existing threshold. All existing secret fields (which don't declare a `maxLength`) keep their current rendering. Test coverage pins both paths. - The redaction in `runLifecycleCommand` is a defense-in-depth measure; the test suite exercises the redaction path. If the redaction misses a future env-arg shape, the worst case is restored behavior (secrets in error messages), which is what the existing daytona / e2b plugins also do today. - Default setup script downloads from `deb.nodesource.com` over HTTPS at VM init. Operators on air-gapped networks or with a different package strategy can override the setup script. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) - Capabilities used: extended reasoning, tool use (Read/Edit/Bash/Grep) ## 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 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 — UI change is a textarea variant of an existing secret field; will attach screenshots before requesting merge - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (plugin README, manifest descriptions) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
486fb88a15 |
Add Cloudflare sandbox provider plugin (#5687)
> _Stacked on top of #5685 → #5686. Diff against master includes commits from earlier PRs in the stack — review focuses on the two new commits (`Extend sandbox callback bridge for Worker-hosted plugins` + `Add Cloudflare sandbox provider plugin`)._ ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Each agent runs in a sandbox environment, and operators choose which provider backs that sandbox — today E2B and Daytona are bundled with the platform > - Cloudflare Workers + Durable Objects + the Sandbox SDK offer a credible new option: globally distributed, cheap idle, and operator-deployable as a single Worker > - To plug it in, Paperclip needs (a) a provider plugin that speaks the `PaperclipPluginManifestV1` lifecycle and (b) a small operator-deployed Worker — the **bridge** — that adapts Paperclip's runtime RPCs to the Cloudflare Sandbox SDK > - The plugin extends the existing sandbox-callback-bridge with a `bridge.transport: "worker"` discriminator so the platform routes runtime RPCs through the Worker bridge instead of the in-process runner > - This pull request adds the plugin, the bridge Worker template, and the supporting adapter-utils + server hooks the new transport needs > - The benefit is that operators can run sandboxes on Cloudflare's edge with no new platform code beyond installing the plugin and deploying the Worker ## What Changed **Shared support (`Extend sandbox callback bridge for Worker-hosted plugins`):** - `packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-callback-bridge.{ts,test.ts}`: expose `expectedHostHeader` so plugin-side bridge clients can verify the canonical request envelope before forwarding. - `packages/adapter-utils/src/command-managed-runtime.{ts,test.ts}`: relax the always-fresh runner construction so callers can re-use a runner across exec calls (Worker-hosted bridges hold the runner inside a Durable Object). - `server/src/services/environment-runtime.ts` + `environment-runtime.test.ts`: route Worker-hosted bridges through the same env-shaping path as E2B and pin the `requestEnv` contract. - `server/src/services/plugin-environment-driver.ts`: thread an optional `issueId` through the runtime descriptor so bridges can scope leases to the originating issue (used by Cloudflare to map a sandbox to the issue/workflow for billing and audit). - `packages/plugins/sdk/src/protocol.ts`: add `issueId?` to `PluginEnvironmentDriverBaseParams` and the new `bridge.transport: "worker"` discriminator that the new plugin declares. - `server/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts`: pin the heartbeat path against the new runtime descriptor. **The Cloudflare plugin itself (`Add Cloudflare sandbox provider plugin`):** - `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/cloudflare/`: plugin entry, manifest, plugin runtime (lifecycle + bridge client), config parsing, and Vitest coverage. Manifest declares `bridge.transport: "worker"` so the platform routes runtime RPCs through the bridge client. - `bridge-template/`: a Worker template the operator deploys with `wrangler`. Owns Durable Object-backed sessions (`sessions.ts`), exec/stream routes (`exec.ts`, `routes.ts`), and an HMAC auth layer (`auth.ts`) that pins the `Host` header surface. Includes the SDK-contract-correct exec implementation, lease recovery, and chunked stdout/stderr streaming. - Tests cover lease/session handoff (`bridge-template/src/exec.test.ts`, `routes.test.ts`), bridge client request shaping (`src/bridge-client.test.ts`), and end-to-end plugin behavior (`src/plugin.test.ts`) including streamed exec output. 27 tests in total. - `README.md` walks the operator through deploying the bridge Worker, registering the plugin, and configuring the runtime. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run --no-coverage packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-callback-bridge.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/command-managed-runtime.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - `(cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/cloudflare && pnpm test)` — 27 passing For an operator-side smoke test: 1. Deploy the bridge: `cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/cloudflare/bridge-template && wrangler deploy` 2. Register the plugin in your Paperclip instance, point its bridge URL at the deployed Worker, set the HMAC shared secret. 3. Create a sandbox environment whose provider is `cloudflare`, then run a Codex or Claude job against it. ## Risks - Adds a new `bridge.transport: "worker"` code path, but the existing E2B / Daytona transports go through the same shaped helpers and have explicit test coverage that pins their behavior unchanged. - The Worker bridge stores session state in a Durable Object; operator instances must be aware of the corresponding Cloudflare costs (DO requests, storage). Documented in the README. - The `issueId` plumbing is optional throughout — existing plugins that don't supply it continue to work. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) - Capabilities used: extended reasoning, tool use (Read/Edit/Bash/Grep) ## 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 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 (plugin README, bridge-template README) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
534aee66ae |
Add cursor_cloud adapter for Cursor SDK + Cloud Agents API v1 (#5664)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - There are many adapter types, one per agent-runtime product (Claude,
Codex, OpenCode, Cursor local CLI, etc.)
> - Cursor shipped a public TypeScript SDK on 2026-04-29 that exposes
Cursor's full hosted-agent platform (cloud VMs, harness, MCP, skills,
hooks)
> - Paperclip had no first-class adapter for this — agents that wanted
to use Cursor's managed cloud runtime had to fall back to the local CLI
adapter, which loses the cloud session, streaming, and durable run model
> - This PR adds a new `cursor_cloud` adapter built directly on
`@cursor/sdk`, with Paperclip's heartbeat mapped to Cursor's
durable-agent + per-run model
> - The benefit is that any Paperclip agent can now drive a Cursor cloud
agent across heartbeats with native session reuse, streaming, and
cancellation, while Paperclip remains the source of truth for issue/task
state
## What Changed
- New built-in adapter package `packages/adapters/cursor-cloud` (15
files, ~1.7k LOC) backed by `@cursor/sdk` ^1.0.12
- `src/server/execute.ts` — SDK-first lifecycle: `Agent.create` /
`Agent.resume` / `Agent.getRun` / `agent.send` / `run.stream` /
`run.wait`, with session reuse keyed on the (runtime env type, env name,
repo set) tuple
- `src/server/session.ts` — codec for `cursorAgentId` + `latestRunId` +
repo metadata, persisted in `runtime.sessionParams`
- `src/server/test.ts` — environment probe via `Cursor.me()` and
optional model validation via `Cursor.models.list()`
- `src/ui/parse-stdout.ts` + `src/cli/format-event.ts` — normalize
Cursor SDK message types (`status`, `thinking`, `assistant`, `user`,
`tool_call`, `tool_result`, `result`) into Paperclip transcript events
for the UI and CLI
- Registrations: `packages/shared/src/constants.ts`,
`packages/adapter-utils/src/session-compaction.ts`,
`server/src/adapters/{registry,builtin-adapter-types}.ts`,
`ui/src/adapters/{registry,adapter-display-registry}.ts` +
`ui/src/adapters/cursor-cloud/index.ts`, `cli/src/adapters/registry.ts`,
plus workspace deps in `cli`/`server`/`ui` `package.json`
- `ui/src/components/AgentConfigForm.tsx` — hide local-Cursor
`mode`/thinking-effort field for `cursor_cloud` (different config
surface)
- 11 vitest tests covering execute paths (fresh create, matching-resume,
active-run reattach, non-finished result), session codec round-trip,
transcript parsing, and config building
## Verification
Reviewer steps:
```bash
pnpm install
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-cursor-cloud typecheck # → clean
pnpm vitest run packages/adapters/cursor-cloud # → 11/11 passing
```
End-to-end check against a real Cursor cloud agent (requires
`CURSOR_API_KEY` and Cursor GitHub-app install on the target repo):
1. Create a `cursor_cloud` agent in Paperclip with `repoUrl` set to the
test repo, `repoStartingRef: main`, and `env.CURSOR_API_KEY` set
2. Trigger a heartbeat → adapter calls `Agent.create({ cloud: { env: {
type: "cloud" }, repos: [...] } })`, streams events, terminates on
`finished`
3. Trigger a second heartbeat → adapter calls `Agent.resume` or
`agent.send` follow-up depending on prior-run state, reusing
`cursorAgentId`
4. The Paperclip UI/CLI transcript reflects Cursor `status` / `thinking`
/ `assistant` events as they stream
5. Cancellation from Paperclip maps to `run.cancel()` or Cloud API v1
`cancelRun` for cross-heartbeat cancellation
A direct-SDK smoke run against a real repo (devinfoley/my_test_project @
main) confirmed: `Cursor.me()` ok → `Agent.create` → `agent.send` →
`run.stream()` (30 events) → terminal status `finished` in ~11s.
## Risks
- **New adapter, additive only.** No existing adapter or registry is
replaced; current `cursor` local-CLI adapter is untouched. Default
behavior of any existing agent is unchanged.
- **External dependency on `@cursor/sdk`.** Cursor's SDK is v1.0.x and
may evolve. Mocked unit tests cover the public surface used here; if the
SDK breaks compatibility we update the adapter independently.
- **Cost/budget.** `cursor_cloud` runs on Cursor's billed cloud VMs;
operators must understand they are spending money outside Paperclip's
budget controls when they enable this adapter. Same shape as other
API-billed adapters.
- **No webhook support in V1.** The SDK already provides
stream/wait/cancel/reattach, so V1 does not require a public callback
URL. If a future use case needs out-of-band wakes, we add a Cloud API v1
webhook bridge as a separate change. This is called out in the issue
plan document.
- **Lockfile.** Per repo policy, `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally not
in this PR — CI's lockfile workflow will update it on merge given the
manifest changes.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic Claude (via Claude Code / Paperclip `claude_local`
adapter)
- Model: `claude-opus-4-7` (Claude Opus 4.7), knowledge cutoff January
2026
- Mode: standard tool-use with extended reasoning
- Context: ~200k token window
- Capabilities used: code generation, multi-file edits, shell/test
execution, GitHub PR workflow
## 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 run tests locally and they pass (11/11 in
`packages/adapters/cursor-cloud`)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (4 new test files,
11 cases)
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (the only UI change is hiding the local-Cursor mode field on
the `cursor_cloud` adapter — happy to attach a screenshot if the
reviewer wants one)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (issue
plan document supersedes the pre-SDK design; tracked in PAPA-203)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
Devin Foley
|
a72731f118 |
fix: harden release registry verification against npm lag (#4816)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Its release automation publishes canary packages to npm and then validates the published registry state before considering the release healthy > - The failing canary run `25139465018` showed that npm can expose a newly published version through version-specific endpoints before the root package document has fully converged > - That made a successful canary publish look like a failed release because the verifier trusted stale root metadata too early > - This pull request hardens the registry verification path by preferring version-specific manifest checks, retrying convergence-sensitive failures, and distinguishing permanent failures from propagation lag > - While validating that change in CI, a separate teardown race in `heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` surfaced and was hardened so the PR could pass reliably > - The benefit is that transient npm propagation lag no longer fails a successful canary publish, while genuine registry-state and dependency-integrity failures still stop the release flow promptly ## What Changed - Hardened `scripts/verify-release-registry-state.mjs` so it prefers version-specific manifest resolution over stale root metadata, adds bounded registry-fetch timeouts, and classifies failures as retriable vs non-retriable. - Updated `scripts/release-lib.sh` and `scripts/release.sh` so post-publish registry verification retries only convergence-sensitive failures and reports immediate permanent failures clearly. - Expanded `scripts/verify-release-registry-state.test.mjs` with regression coverage for stale root metadata, fetch timeout behavior, peer dependency range handling, non-retriable canary-latest cases, and related verifier edge cases. - Hardened `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` teardown to tolerate the late-comment foreign-key race that CI exposed while validating this branch. ## Verification - `pnpm run test:release-registry` - `node --check scripts/verify-release-registry-state.mjs` - `bash -n scripts/release.sh && bash -n scripts/release-lib.sh` - PR checks passed on head `5c422600fc12acac61f6b7c267a4dc915df622b1`: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review` ## Risks - Low risk. The main behavioral changes are limited to release automation and verifier retry semantics, plus a test-only teardown hardening for a CI race. > I checked [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md). This is a narrow release bugfix and does not overlap planned core feature work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` with tool use and local code execution enabled. This agent session runs on a GPT-5-class coding model; the exact backend model ID/context window is not exposed by the local adapter runtime. ## 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 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 - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I have addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
433dfed33d |
Enable CI publish for plugin-daytona (#5586)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The release pipeline gates new public packages behind a bootstrap policy: `scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs` requires every package marked `publishFromCi: true` in `scripts/release-package-manifest.json` to already exist on npm > - PR #5580 added the new Daytona sandbox provider plugin but had to land with `publishFromCi: false` because the package had never been published, so CI's release plan would have failed bootstrap validation otherwise > - Now that `@paperclipai/plugin-daytona` has been bootstrap-published to npm by hand, the temporary `false` flag is the only thing keeping it out of the standard CI publish flow > - This pull request flips the Daytona entry to `publishFromCi: true`, matching every other release-enabled package in the manifest > - The benefit is that future tagged releases will publish the Daytona plugin automatically alongside the rest of the monorepo's public packages ## What Changed - Single-line flip in `scripts/release-package-manifest.json`: `@paperclipai/plugin-daytona` is now `publishFromCi: true` ## Verification - `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check` → `Release package manifest OK: 19 enabled for CI publish, 0 disabled pending bootstrap` (was 18 + 1) - `node ./scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs scripts/release-package-manifest.json` against `origin/master` → `Release bootstrap OK for changed manifests: @paperclipai/plugin-daytona`, confirming npm sees the bootstrap-published package - No code changes; no tests required beyond the existing manifest validators ## Risks - Low risk. Only effect is that the next release run will include `@paperclipai/plugin-daytona` in its publish set - If the npm bootstrap was incomplete, CI's bootstrap check will fail loudly before any release tag goes out — same safety net the policy is designed to provide ## Model Used - Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`), extended thinking, 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 run tests locally and they pass - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (N/A — manifest-only flag flip, covered by existing validators) - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — release config) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
778e775c35 |
Add secrets provider vaults and remote import (#5429)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies and needs secrets handling to work across local development, hosted operators, and governed agent execution. > - The affected subsystem is the company-scoped secrets control plane: database schema, server services/routes, CLI workflows, and the Secrets settings UI. > - The gap was that secrets were local-only and operators could not manage provider vaults or import existing remote references without exposing plaintext. > - This branch adds provider vault configuration plus an AWS Secrets Manager remote-import path while preserving company boundaries, binding context, and audit trails. > - I kept the PR to a single branch PR, removed unrelated lockfile/package drift, rebased the full branch onto the current `public-gh/master`, and addressed fresh Greptile findings. > - The benefit is a reviewable implementation of provider-backed secrets with focused tests covering provider selection, import conflicts, deleted secret reuse, rotation guards, and AWS signing behavior. ## What Changed - Added provider vault support for company secrets, including provider config storage, default vault handling, health checks, binding usage, access events, and remote import preview/commit. - Added an AWS Secrets Manager provider using SigV4 request signing, bounded request timeouts, namespace guardrails, cached runtime credential resolution, and external-reference linking without plaintext reads. - Added Secrets UI surfaces for vault management and remote import, plus CLI/API documentation for setup and operations. - Stabilized routine webhook secret binding paths and SSH environment-driver fixture bindings discovered during verification. - Addressed Greptile and CI findings: no lockfile/package drift, monotonic migration metadata, disabled-vault default races, soft-deleted secret hiding/recreate behavior, remove behavior with disabled vaults, soft-deleted external-reference re-import, non-active rotation guards, managed-secret soft deletion through PATCH, and per-call AWS SDK credential client churn. - Rebased this branch onto `public-gh/master` at `0e1a5828` and force-pushed with lease to keep this as the single PR for the branch. ## Verification - `git fetch public-gh master` - `git rebase public-gh/master` - `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | grep '^pnpm-lock\.yaml$' || true` confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the PR diff. - Confirmed migration ordering: master ends at `0081_optimal_dormammu`; this PR adds `0082_dry_vision` and `0083_company_secret_provider_configs`. - Inspected migrations for repeat safety: new tables/indexes use `IF NOT EXISTS`; foreign keys are guarded by `DO $$ ... IF NOT EXISTS`; column additions use `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. - `pnpm test:run` ran the full stable Vitest path before the Greptile follow-up commits; it completed with 3 timing-related failures under parallel load: `codex-local-execute.test.ts`, `cursor-local-execute.test.ts`, and `environment-service.test.ts`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts` passed on targeted rerun (`24/24`). - `pnpm build` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. Vite reported existing chunk-size/dynamic-import warnings. - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`26/26`). - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`39/39`). - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - Captured Storybook screenshots from `ui/storybook-static` for visual review. - Latest PR checks on `5ca3a5cf`: `policy`, serialized server suites 1/4-4/4, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review` pass; aggregate `verify` is still registering the completed child checks. - Greptile review loop continued through the latest requested pass; all Greptile review threads are resolved and the latest `Greptile Review` check on `5ca3a5cf` passed with 0 comments added. ## Screenshots Before: the provider-vault and remote-import surfaces did not exist on `master`; these are after-state screenshots from the Storybook fixtures.    ## Risks - Migration risk: this adds new secret provider tables and extends existing secret rows. The migrations were checked for monotonic ordering and idempotent guards, but reviewers should still inspect upgrade behavior carefully. - Provider risk: AWS support uses direct SigV4 requests. Automated tests cover signing, request timeouts, vault-config selection, namespace guardrails, pending-version archival, sanitized provider errors, and service-level cleanup paths. A real-vault AWS smoke test remains deployment validation for an operator with AWS credentials rather than an unverified merge blocker in this local branch. - UI risk: the Secrets page and import dialog are large new surfaces; screenshots are included above for reviewer inspection. - Verification risk: the full local stable test command hit parallel-load timing failures, although the exact failed files passed when rerun directly. - Operational risk: remote import intentionally avoids plaintext reads; operators must understand that imported external references resolve at runtime and may fail if AWS permissions change. > 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 coding agent with local shell/tool use in the Paperclip worktree. Exact context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
06e6ee25cd |
Add Daytona sandbox provider plugin (#5580)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Agents need isolated sandbox environments to execute work safely; Paperclip already supports E2B as a sandbox provider plugin > - Users want to use Daytona (https://www.daytona.io/) as an alternative sandbox backend, but no plugin existed for it > - Without a Daytona plugin, teams that prefer Daytona's pricing/regions/runtime can't run Paperclip agents on it > - This pull request adds a `@paperclip/sandbox-provider-daytona` plugin that mirrors the existing E2B plugin shape and wires up Daytona's `@daytonaio/sdk` for sandbox lifecycle, command execution, and shell detection > - The benefit is that operators can pick Daytona as a first-class sandbox provider without touching core code, broadening Paperclip's runtime options ## What Changed - New plugin package `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona` with manifest, worker entry, and provider implementation backed by `@daytonaio/sdk` - Implements sandbox create/destroy/exec/upload/download lifecycle, shell command detection, and config/env wiring consistent with the E2B plugin - Adds unit tests under `src/plugin.test.ts` and a README documenting setup and the `DAYTONA_API_KEY` requirement - Minor adjustments in `scripts/paperclip-issue-update.sh`, `packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts`, and `packages/shared/src/validators/issue.ts` to support the integration ## Verification - Re-ran the full sandbox provider matrix on the QA Paperclip instance using Daytona as the runtime — all 6 adapters executed inside the Daytona sandbox with zero `environmentExecute` timeouts - 5/6 adapters pass cleanly (or with informational warns); the only failure is `codex_local`, which is an OpenAI quota/billing issue unrelated to Daytona - `pnpm --filter @paperclip/sandbox-provider-daytona test` runs the plugin unit tests ## Risks - New optional plugin; no behavior change for users who don't enable it - Requires `DAYTONA_API_KEY` for runtime use — documented in the plugin README - Daytona SDK is a new external dependency; tracked in the plugin's own package.json so it doesn't affect the core install footprint ## Model Used - Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`), extended thinking, 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 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 — backend plugin) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
f784d8d90e |
Retry canary registry verification (#5579)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, and the release pipeline is part of keeping that control plane shippable. > - The relevant subsystem here is the release automation in `scripts/release.sh`, which publishes canary builds and then verifies npm registry state. > - The failing CI run showed a successful publish followed by an immediate registry-state verification failure while npm dist-tag metadata was still propagating. > - That made the canary job flaky even when the publish itself had succeeded, which is the wrong failure mode for release automation. > - This pull request adds bounded retries around the post-publish registry-state verification step instead of failing on the first stale read. > - The benefit is that canary releases tolerate transient npm propagation lag while still failing clearly if registry metadata never converges. ## What Changed - Wrapped the post-publish `verify-release-registry-state.mjs` call in a bounded retry loop inside `scripts/release.sh`. - Reused the existing publish verification retry defaults and added optional overrides via `NPM_REGISTRY_STATE_VERIFY_ATTEMPTS` and `NPM_REGISTRY_STATE_VERIFY_DELAY_SECONDS` for dist-tag-specific tuning. ## Verification - `bash -n scripts/release.sh` - CI will also exercise the release path via the existing `Canary Dry Run` workflow job in `.github/workflows/pr.yml`. ## Risks - Low risk. The main behavioral change is that a genuinely broken registry-state verification can now wait through the configured retry window before failing. > 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 local agent, GPT-5-based Codex runtime in Paperclip with tool use and shell execution. The exact backend model ID/context window is not surfaced in this local heartbeat 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 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 - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
47920f9c47 |
Speed up PR CI critical path (#5147)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for autonomous companies, so
developer throughput on the control plane repo directly affects how fast
the product can evolve.
> - The PR workflow is part of that throughput surface because every
change waits on it before review and merge.
> - This branch started from measured evidence that the PR critical path
was dominated by work that was either serialized unnecessarily or placed
on the wrong part of the graph.
> - The biggest concrete problems were: the canary dry run living inside
`verify`, the server isolated suites running one-by-one in a single
lane, and duplicate CI work that the PR path was paying for without
increasing coverage proportionally.
> - This pull request restructures the PR workflow so those costs are
reduced without removing the important coverage that was already
protecting release and test quality.
> - Follow-up fixes on the branch hardened the new entrypoints so they
work on clean GitHub runners and so the reduced PR typecheck path stays
self-maintaining as workspace packages evolve.
> - The benefit is materially faster PR wall-clock time while keeping
canary packaging checks, serialized-suite isolation, plugin SDK
consumers, and explicit TypeScript coverage where builds do not already
provide it.
## What Changed
- Moved the PR canary dry run into its own `Canary Dry Run` job so it
still runs on PRs but no longer extends the `verify` critical path.
- Split the custom Vitest runner into `general`, `serialized`, and `all`
modes, and added shard support for the isolated server suites.
- Added `test:run:general` and `test:run:serialized` scripts, then
rewired PR CI to fan the serialized server suites out across a 4-way
matrix.
- Added the required `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` build preflight before
the new reduced-scope typecheck and test entrypoints so they succeed on
clean CI runners.
- Replaced the hardcoded PR build-gap list with
`scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs`, which discovers workspace
packages whose `build` scripts skip TypeScript and runs only their
explicit `typecheck` scripts.
- Removed the redundant `pnpm build` from the PR `e2e` job because the
Playwright onboarding path boots Paperclip from source.
## Verification
- `ruby -e "require 'yaml'; YAML.load_file('.github/workflows/pr.yml');
puts 'workflow ok'"`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode serialized --shard-index 0
--shard-count 4 --dry-run`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `pnpm test:run:general`
- `pnpm test:run:serialized -- --shard-index 0 --shard-count 4`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm paperclipai onboard --yes --run`
- `curl http://127.0.0.1:3299/api/health`
## Risks
- Branch protection or required-check configuration may need to be
updated for the new standalone `Canary Dry Run` job and the
serialized-suite matrix job names.
- `scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs` assumes packages that need
explicit PR-time typechecking are the ones whose `build` scripts omit
`tsc`; if build conventions change, that heuristic needs to stay
aligned.
- Serialized test sharding preserves per-suite isolation, but the first
few CI runs should still be watched for shard-balance or naming
assumptions in downstream tooling.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.4 via the Codex local adapter, using high reasoning
effort with shell, git, and file-edit tool use in a local worktree.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
Devin Foley
|
29401b231b |
fix(ci): gate new release packages on npm bootstrap (#5146)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous agent companies, so its release automation is part of the core operator trust boundary. > - The affected subsystem is npm/GitHub Actions release publishing for the public monorepo packages. > - The concrete failure was that a newly added package reached `master`, the canary workflow attempted its first publish, and npm trusted publishing was not yet bootstrapped for that package. > - That means the problem is not just one broken run; it is a missing pre-merge guard that lets release-ineligible packages land and only fail once `publish_canary` runs. > - This pull request makes release enrollment explicit, validates that enrollment in CI, and adds a PR-time bootstrap check against npm for changed release-enabled package manifests. > - The result is that we keep trusted publishing, avoid teaching CI to `npm adduser`, and move this class of failure from post-merge canary time to pre-merge review time. ## What Changed - Added `scripts/release-package-manifest.json` so release-managed public packages are explicitly enrolled instead of being inferred from every non-private workspace package. - Hardened `scripts/release-package-map.mjs` to validate the manifest before release workflows rewrite versions or assemble publish payloads. - Added `scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs` and wired it into `.github/workflows/pr.yml` so PRs that change a release-enabled package manifest fail if that package does not already exist on npm. - Added release-package manifest coverage tests to `scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs` and included them in `pnpm run test:release-registry`. - Wired manifest validation into `.github/workflows/release.yml` and documented the first-publish bootstrap policy in `doc/PUBLISHING.md` and `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`. ## Verification - `pnpm run test:release-registry` - `./scripts/release.sh canary --skip-verify --dry-run` - Confirmed the committed diff contains no obvious PII/secrets via targeted pattern scan before pushing. ## Risks - Low risk overall: this is CI/release-policy code, not product runtime logic. - The new PR bootstrap check depends on npm metadata availability, so a transient npm outage could block a PR that changes a release-enabled package manifest. - The manifest introduces a new source of truth that must stay aligned with public package additions, but that is intentional and now enforced. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via the `codex_local` Paperclip adapter; GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use, terminal execution, git, and GitHub CLI. Exact served model ID/context window are not exposed by the local runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
685ee84e4a |
[codex] Document terminal bench dispatch config (#4961)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip agents rely on skills for repeatable operating procedures > - The Terminal-Bench loop skill needs to preserve enough dispatch configuration to reproduce real heartbeat behavior > - A bare benchmark command can create unassigned work with no heartbeat-enabled agent, which is a harness setup failure rather than product evidence > - The Paperclip heartbeat skill also needs to keep escalation biased toward agent-owned follow-through > - This pull request documents dispatch runner config requirements and strengthens the agent follow-through rule > - The benefit is fewer misleading benchmark loops and clearer agent operating guidance ## What Changed - Documented `PAPERCLIP_HARBOR_RUNNER_CONFIG` / runner dispatch config as required Terminal-Bench loop input. - Updated the Terminal-Bench loop smoke check to require the dispatch config mention. - Added stronger Paperclip skill guidance to avoid asking humans for work an agent can perform. ## Verification - `pnpm smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill` ## Risks - Low risk: documentation and smoke expectation changes only. The stricter smoke assertion is intentional so future edits do not drop the dispatch config requirement. > 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 coding agent, tool use and local command execution. Exact context window was not exposed in the runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
4272c1604d |
Add ACPX local adapter runtime (#4893)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through a control plane that can start, supervise, and recover agent runs. > - Local adapters are the bridge between Paperclip issues and concrete agent runtimes such as Claude, Codex, and other ACP-compatible tools. > - The roadmap calls out broader “bring your own agent” and claw-style agent support, and ACPX gives Paperclip one path to normalize multiple ACP agents behind a single adapter. > - The branch needed to become one reviewable PR against current `paperclipai/paperclip:master`, without carrying stale base conflicts or generated lockfile churn. > - This pull request adds an experimental built-in `acpx_local` adapter, integrates it through the server/CLI/UI adapter surfaces, and adds regression coverage for runtime execution, skill sync, stream parsing, diagnostics, and log redaction. > - The benefit is that Paperclip can run Claude/Codex/custom ACP agents through ACPX while keeping operator configuration, skills, logging, and transcript rendering inside the existing adapter model. ## What Changed - Added `@paperclipai/adapter-acpx-local` with server execution, config schema, ACPX session handling, CLI formatting, UI config helpers, and stdout parsing. - Registered `acpx_local` across CLI, server, shared constants, UI adapter metadata, adapter capabilities, and agent creation/editing surfaces. - Added ACPX runtime execution support with persistent sessions, local-agent JWT environment handling, skill snapshots, runtime skill materialization, and isolation/security regressions. - Added ACPX adapter diagnostics and marked the adapter experimental in the UI. - Added command/env secret redaction for resolved command metadata in adapter-utils, server event storage, and the Agent Detail invocation UI. - Added Storybook coverage for ACPX config, transcript rendering, and skill states, plus PR screenshots under `docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2944/`. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master`; `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally not included and there are no migration/schema changes. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/server/execute.test.ts packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/server/test.test.ts packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/cli/format-event.test.ts packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/redaction.test.ts server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-execute.test.ts server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-skill-sync.test.ts server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-adapter-environment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts ui/src/adapters/metadata.test.ts` — 12 files, 87 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-acpx-local typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Confirmed PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`, database schema files, or migrations. Screenshots:    ## Risks - Medium risk: this introduces a new built-in adapter package and touches runtime execution, adapter registration, agent config, skills, and transcript rendering. - ACPX and ACP agent behavior can vary by installed tool versions; the adapter is marked experimental to set operator expectations. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is excluded per repository PR policy, so dependency lock refresh must be handled by the repo’s automation or maintainers. - No database migration risk: no schema or migration files changed. > 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, git operations, and local verification. Exact hosted context window was not exposed in 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
1fe1067361 |
Polish board settings and skills workflow (#4863)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip's board UI and bundled skills are the operator layer for configuring agents, routines, issue workflows, and local troubleshooting loops. > - The prior rollup mixed this operator polish with database backups, backend reliability, thread scale, and cost/workflow primitives. > - This pull request isolates the remaining board QoL, settings, issue-detail integration, adapter config cleanup, and skills smoke tooling. > - It includes some integration-level overlap with the thread and workflow slices so this branch can run from `origin/master` while still preserving the full original work. > - Preferred merge order is the narrower primitives first, then this integration PR last. > - The benefit is that reviewers can inspect the user-facing board/settings/skills layer separately from backend infrastructure changes. ## What Changed - Added board/settings polish for agents, routines, company settings, project workspace detail, and issue detail controls. - Added agent/routine UI regression tests and New Issue dialog coverage. - Integrated issue-detail activity/cost/interaction surfaces and leaf work pause/resume controls. - Cleaned bundled adapter UI config defaults and onboarding copy. - Added terminal-bench loop and work-stoppage diagnosis skills plus a smoke test script. - Updated attachment type handling and Paperclip skill/API guidance. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts` - Result: 7 test files passed, 54 tests passed. - `pnpm run smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill` - Result: JSON output included `"ok": true` and `"cleanup": true`. - UI screenshots not included because verification is focused component/page coverage for the changed board surfaces. ## Risks - This is the integration-heavy PR in the split and intentionally overlaps some component/API primitives with the issue-thread and workflow PRs so it can run from `origin/master`. - Preferred merge order: #4859, #4860, #4861, #4862, then this PR last. If earlier branches merge first, this PR may need a straightforward conflict refresh in shared UI files. - The terminal-bench smoke script creates temporary mock issues and relies on cleanup; the verified run returned `cleanup: true`. > 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-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium reasoning effort. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
87f19cd9a6 |
Improve issue thread scale and markdown polish (#4861)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip's board UI is the operator surface for supervising AI-agent companies. > - Issue threads are where operators read progress, respond to agents, inspect markdown, and jump through long histories. > - Large threads and rich markdown had become difficult to navigate and expensive to render. > - The previous rollup mixed these UI scale fixes with unrelated backend recovery, costs, backups, and settings changes. > - This pull request isolates the issue-thread scale and markdown polish work. > - The benefit is a reviewable UI slice that can merge independently of the backend reliability, database backup, workflow, and board QoL PRs. ## What Changed - Virtualized long issue chat threads and stabilized anchor/jump-to-latest behavior for large histories. - Added incremental issue-list row loading and tests for scroll-triggered pagination behavior. - Hardened markdown body rendering and markdown editor behavior around HTML tags, image drops, code-copy UI, and escaped newline handling. - Added a long-thread measurement harness at `scripts/measure-issue-chat-long-thread.mjs` plus `perf:issue-chat-long-thread`. - Added focused UI/lib regression coverage for thread rendering, markdown, optimistic comments, and message building. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/lib/optimistic-issue-comments.test.ts` - Result: 6 test files passed, 170 tests passed. - UI screenshots not included because this PR is covered by targeted component tests and does not introduce a new page layout. ## Risks - Virtualization changes can affect scroll anchoring in edge cases on very long threads. - Markdown/editor hardening changes are intentionally defensive, but malformed content may render differently than before. > 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-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium reasoning effort. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
a0f5cbffd7 |
Harden release flow with registry verification and dist-tag checks (#4800)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Paperclip is distributed as npm packages, including plugins like `plugin-e2b` > - The release process publishes canary and stable builds via npm dist-tags > - But there was no automated verification that published packages actually landed with the correct dist-tags, and broken canary publishes could silently ship to users > - This PR adds a registry verification script that checks published packages match their expected dist-tags, and wires it into PR CI so regressions are caught before merge > - The benefit is release integrity is verified automatically, and broken dist-tag states are caught early ## What Changed - Added `scripts/verify-release-registry-state.mjs` — verifies that published npm packages have correct dist-tag assignments and detects orphaned or mispointed tags - Added `scripts/verify-release-registry-state.test.mjs` — test coverage for the verification logic - Updated `scripts/release.sh` to include canary dist-tag safety checks before publishing - Updated `.github/workflows/pr.yml` to run registry verification as a CI step - Updated `doc/PUBLISHING.md` and `doc/RELEASING.md` with the new verification workflow ## Verification - `pnpm test` — all tests pass including new verification script tests - `node scripts/verify-release-registry-state.mjs` — runs against the live npm registry and reports current state - CI: the new PR workflow step runs on every PR push ## Risks - Low risk. This is additive CI and tooling — no runtime code changes. The registry verification is read-only (queries npm, does not publish). The release script changes add safety checks that abort before publishing if state is unexpected. ## Model Used Codex GPT 5.4 high 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 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 - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
82e257c7ba |
Cancel stale queued heartbeats when issue graph changes (PAP-2314) (#4534)
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
868d08903e |
test: isolate CLI company import e2e state (#4560)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, and its CLI import/export path is part of how operators move company state safely between environments. > - The `paperclipai company import/export` e2e test is supposed to validate that portability flow inside a hermetic harness, not against a developer's live Paperclip home. > - This regression showed nested CLI subprocesses could silently fall back to ambient `PAPERCLIP_*` state and mutate a real local instance by creating extra companies such as `CLI-1-Roundtrip-Test`. > - The first job was to pin the test subprocesses to isolated config, home, instance, auth, and context paths, and to add a regression assertion that proves the nested CLI writes stay inside the test-owned state. > - Once the PR was up, CI and Greptile exposed two follow-on issues that were blocking merge: plugin SDK typecheck bootstrap was racing across packages in fresh CI, and the new lock helper needed one more fix to release its lock on failure. > - This pull request therefore ends up doing two tightly related things: fixing the original CLI isolation leak, and hardening the supporting typecheck/bootstrap path enough for the fix to verify cleanly in CI. > - The benefit is that the portability e2e test is now actually isolated, and the PR verification path is stable enough to catch regressions instead of introducing its own nondeterministic failures. ## What Changed - Hardened `cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts` so nested CLI subprocesses re-seed isolated `PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_HOME`, `PAPERCLIP_INSTANCE_ID`, `PAPERCLIP_CONTEXT`, `PAPERCLIP_AUTH_STORE`, and throwaway `HOME` values instead of falling back to ambient machine state. - Added a regression assertion around `paperclipai context set --json`, then cleared the temporary `context.json` so the isolation check and the later export/import flow stay independent. - Passed the same isolated `HOME` into the server subprocess so both sides of the e2e harness are symmetric. - Introduced locking in `scripts/ensure-plugin-build-deps.mjs` and switched the server/plugin example `typecheck` scripts to use that helper instead of launching concurrent raw `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` builds. - Fixed the helper failure path so it releases the lock before exiting non-zero, which prevents stale-lock timeouts during parallel typecheck runs. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts --project paperclipai` - `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - PR checks now pass on the current head, including `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review`. ## Risks - Low risk. The product-facing behavior change is scoped to test harness code in the CLI e2e suite. - The CI stabilization changes only affect bootstrap/typecheck helper paths for the server and plugin/example packages, but they do touch shared verification plumbing; the main risk is changing how fresh build artifacts are prepared in local/CI typecheck runs. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude via Paperclip `claude_local`, model `claude-opus-4-7`, high-effort local coding agent, used for the initial implementation and first peer-reviewed verification. - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local`, model `gpt-5.4`, high reasoning-effort local coding agent with tool use, used for CI triage, Greptile follow-up fixes, verification, and PR maintenance. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
df425fde96 |
Present ordered sub-issues as a workflow checklist (#4523)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators use issue detail pages and child issue lists to understand multi-step execution plans. > - Ordered sub-issues currently read like a flat table, so dependency chains and current next steps are harder to scan. > - The branch work adds a workflow-oriented presentation for child issues without changing the single-assignee task model. > - This pull request makes ordered sub-issues read more like a progress checklist while preserving normal issue list controls. > - The benefit is that operators can see completed steps, active work, blocked follow-ups, and dependency order at a glance. ## What Changed - Added workflow sorting utilities and tests for dependency-aware child issue ordering. - Added sub-issue progress summary, checklist numbering, current-step affordances, blocker context, and done-state de-emphasis in the issue list UI. - Wired issue detail sub-issue panels to use the workflow sort/progress checklist presentation. - Updated issue service behavior/tests for child issue ordering inputs used by the UI. - Added a Storybook visual review fixture and screenshot helper for the sub-issue workflow checklist surface. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-detail-subissues.test.ts ui/src/lib/workflow-sort.test.ts` - Result: 6 test files passed, 55 tests passed, 34 embedded Postgres issue-service tests skipped because `@embedded-postgres/darwin-x64` is unavailable on this host. - Visual review: generated Storybook screenshots from the existing local Storybook server on port 6006 with `node scripts/screenshot-subissues.mjs /tmp/pap-2189-subissues-screens http://localhost:6006`. - Screenshot artifacts: - Desktop dark:  - Desktop light:  - Mobile dark:  - Mobile light:  - Local Storybook note: starting a second Storybook process selected port 6008 because 6006 was occupied, then Vite failed with an esbuild host/binary version mismatch (`0.25.12` host vs `0.27.3` binary). The already-running Storybook server on 6006 served the fixture successfully for screenshots. ## Risks - Medium UI risk: the issue list now has additional sub-issue-specific visual states, so dense lists should be checked for spacing and scanability. - Low ordering risk: workflow sorting is covered by focused unit tests, but unusual dependency topologies may still need reviewer attention. - No migration risk: this PR does not add database migrations or touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`. > 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 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub workflow. Context window is runtime-provided and not exposed in 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
40782f703d |
Fix release packaging for standalone public packages (#4494)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, and the sandbox-provider work just moved E2B into a standalone publishable plugin package. > - That plugin is intentionally excluded from the root pnpm workspace so it can model third-party install behavior without forcing lockfile churn in the main repo. > - The merged architecture change exposed a follow-up release problem: the canary publish workflow tried to publish `@paperclipai/plugin-e2b`, but the tarball had no `dist/` payload because standalone public packages were not being built in the release path. > - That means the release pipeline needed a packaging fix in core release tooling, not another architectural change in the sandbox provider itself. > - This pull request adds a generic release step for public packages that live outside the pnpm workspace, instead of hardcoding E2B-specific behavior into the release script. > - The benefit is that standalone publishable packages can be built and packed correctly during release, including future sandbox-provider plugins that follow the same pattern. ## What Changed - Added `scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs` to discover public packages outside the pnpm workspace, run a clean package-local install, and build them before publish. - Updated `scripts/release.sh` to invoke that helper immediately after the normal workspace build step. - Kept the behavior generic by driving off the existing public package map and pnpm workspace patterns rather than special-casing `@paperclipai/plugin-e2b`. ## Verification - `rm -rf packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/e2b/dist` - `node ./scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs` - `cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/e2b && npm pack --dry-run` - Confirm the tarball now includes the rebuilt `dist/` files instead of only `README.md` / `package.json` ## Risks - Low risk: this only changes the release build path for public packages outside the pnpm workspace. - The helper performs a clean package-local install for each standalone public package, so release time may increase slightly as more such packages are added. > 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 via `codex_local` - Model ID: `gpt-5.4` - Reasoning effort: `high` - Context window observed in runtime session metadata: `258400` tokens - Capabilities used: terminal tool execution, git, GitHub CLI, and local build/test 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
