5ebbe67ebd9da015eb44e30cf802ae18e1c56fd3
2 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 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 |
||
|
brandonburr
|
96feaa331a |
feat(commitperclip): add automated PR quality and security gates (#6469)
Fixes #6470 ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open-source AI agent platform receiving a high volume of community PRs — currently 2,398 open > - The contributor experience is broken: PRs sit for months with no feedback, contributors don't know why they're stuck, and maintainers spend review time on PRs that are missing basics > - Common problems: no linked issue, no test coverage, incomplete PR template, manually-edited lockfile — all catchable before human review > - At the same time, accepting untrusted PRs from unknown contributors is a real attack surface: malicious packages, secret injection, tampering with CI scripts, and code touching the sensitive paths from the April security advisories > - This PR adds automated gates that run on every PR: quality failures get a clear comment telling contributors exactly what to fix, security concerns are silently flagged as draft advisories and block merge via a pending check run > - The benefit is a dramatically faster feedback loop for good-faith contributors and a meaningful security layer for the maintainers reviewing them ## What Changed - **`.github/workflows/commitperclip-review.yml`** — new workflow using `pull_request_target` (runs in base branch context, has secrets, never executes PR code). Runs quality gates + security gates on every PR open/update. - **`.github/dependabot.yml`** — weekly automated dependency vulnerability PRs for npm and GitHub Actions. - **`.github/scripts/get-bot-token.mjs`** — generates a short-lived commitperclip installation token from `COMMITPERCLIP_KEY` secret. - **`.github/scripts/run-quality-gates.mjs`** — orchestrates 5 quality gates, posts/updates a single consolidated comment on the PR. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-template.mjs`** — validates all 5 required template sections, Thinking Path depth (≥3 sentences), Model Used not placeholder. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-linked-issue.mjs`** — requires `Fixes #NNN` or issue URL in PR body. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-test-coverage.mjs`** — requires at least one test file in the diff. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-lockfile.mjs`** — blocks manual `pnpm-lock.yaml` edits (only the refresh bot may change it). - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-dependencies.mjs`** — informational comment when new npm packages are added. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-security.mjs`** — 6 silent security checks: secret patterns, CI workflow tampering, build script changes, supply chain (new packages in lockfile), suspicious test patterns (outbound network/shell exec/env var reads), and changes to the 9 sensitive path prefixes from the April advisories. When any fire: creates a draft security advisory + sets `security-review` check to `in_progress` (blocks merge). When clean: sets `security-review` to `success`. - **`actions/dependency-review-action@v4`** — per-PR dependency vulnerability check (fails if new dep has known CVE). - **44 unit tests** across all gate modules (`node:test`, no external deps). ## Verification Run all unit tests locally: ```bash node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs ``` Expected: 44 pass, 0 fail. End-to-end: open a PR missing the template, linked issue, and test files → commitperclip posts a consolidated comment listing all failures. Open a PR with all gates satisfied → `✅ All checks passing` comment posted, all check runs green. ## Risks **`pull_request_target` security model:** This workflow runs in base branch context and has access to secrets. It explicitly checks out `ref: master` (never PR code) and reads the PR diff via GitHub API only — no PR code is ever executed. This is the correct pattern for running secret-bearing checks on fork PRs; deviating from it (e.g. checking out the PR branch) would be a security vulnerability. **False positives on security gates:** The sensitive-path gate flags any PR touching the 9 path prefixes from the April advisories. Legitimate fixes to those paths will trigger draft advisories. This is intentional — those paths warrant a human look regardless. The `security-review` check can be manually resolved by a maintainer once reviewed. **commitperclip not yet installed:** Until the app is installed on this repo and the `COMMITPERCLIP_KEY` secret is added, the workflow will fail on the token generation step. The quality gate comment won't post, but Dependency Review will still run independently. ## Model Used Claude Sonnet 4.5, 200k context window, extended thinking enabled, tool use: read/edit files, bash execution, GitHub API calls ## 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 (44/44) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (44 unit tests across all gate modules) - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — CI 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 --- ## One-time setup needed from you, Dotta 1. **Install commitperclip app** on this repo: https://github.com/apps/commitperclip/installations/new 2. **Add `COMMITPERCLIP_KEY`** as a repository secret (Actions → Secrets) — ask @brandonburr for the key 3. **Add `security_advisories: write` and `checks: write`** to the commitperclip app permissions (commit-capital org → Settings → Apps → commitperclip → Permissions) 4. **Install Socket.dev** from GitHub Marketplace for supply chain scanning 5. **Branch protection** (optional but recommended): require `commitperclip-review` and `security-review` checks to pass before merge ## Dashboard integration note The `commitperclip-review` check run result maps cleanly to your PR triage dashboard. A single filter on your Worker: ```javascript const gatesCheck = checkRuns.find(r => r.name === 'commitperclip-review'); if (gatesCheck?.conclusion === 'failure') return null; // filter from queue ``` For security flags: `GET /repos/paperclipai/paperclip/security-advisories?state=draft` — advisory titles include `PR #NNN` for cross-referencing. PRs with a matching draft advisory have `security-review` in `in_progress` state (grey spinner, can't merge via branch protection). --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@devinfoley.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |