paperclip

Arnike/paperclip

Fork 0

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
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>	2026-06-18 07:45:53 -07:00
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>	2026-06-17 18:34:12 -07:00
Devin Foley	4ef969f084	Add E2B sandbox provider plugin (#4452 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Sandbox environments are part of that execution layer, and the recent core refactor moved provider-specific behavior to a generic plugin seam > - This pull request adds a dedicated `@paperclipai/plugin-e2b` package so E2B can live entirely outside core host code > - Because the feature is still unreleased, the plugin should model third-party packaging directly instead of carrying extra backward-compatibility complexity in core or the workspace lockfile > - This branch therefore makes the E2B provider a standalone publishable package, documents the package-local dev flow, and keeps the publish manifest/runtime dependency story correct > - The benefit is that E2B becomes a true plugin reference implementation that can be installed by package name without reopening core Paperclip code ## What Changed - Added `packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b` as the E2B sandbox provider plugin package - Implemented config validation, lease acquire/resume/release/destroy handlers, workspace realization, and command execution for E2B sandboxes - Excluded the E2B plugin package from the root workspace so the repo no longer needs `pnpm-lock.yaml` churn for its third-party dependency graph - Added package-local development/install support plus a prepack manifest generator so the published tarball still declares `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` and `e2b` runtime dependencies - Addressed review feedback by fixing sandbox cleanup on acquire failures, rejecting blank templates, normalizing fractional `timeoutMs`, and always passing the configured template name to the E2B SDK - Updated focused Vitest coverage for config normalization, validation, acquire cleanup, command execution, and lease release behavior - Updated the Dockerfile deps stage to copy the E2B package manifest so the policy check stays in sync ## Verification - `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && pnpm install --ignore-workspace --no-lockfile` - `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && pnpm build` - `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && pnpm --ignore-workspace test` - `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && pnpm --ignore-workspace typecheck` - `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && npm pack --dry-run` ## Risks - The package now relies on a prepack manifest rewrite so the publish-time dependency list stays correct while the repo-local dev manifest stays workspace-light - The current repo snapshot is still unreleased, so the generated publish manifest points at the repo SDK version until the normal release flow rewrites versions before publish - Real-world E2B environments may still expose edge cases around lifecycle timing or sandbox metadata beyond the mocked unit coverage > 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 - [ ] 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	2026-04-25 11:01:11 -07:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

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>

2026-06-18 07:45:53 -07:00

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>

2026-06-17 18:34:12 -07:00

Devin Foley

4ef969f084

Add E2B sandbox provider plugin (#4452 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Sandbox environments are part of that execution layer, and the
recent core refactor moved provider-specific behavior to a generic
plugin seam
> - This pull request adds a dedicated `@paperclipai/plugin-e2b` package
so E2B can live entirely outside core host code
> - Because the feature is still unreleased, the plugin should model
third-party packaging directly instead of carrying extra
backward-compatibility complexity in core or the workspace lockfile
> - This branch therefore makes the E2B provider a standalone
publishable package, documents the package-local dev flow, and keeps the
publish manifest/runtime dependency story correct
> - The benefit is that E2B becomes a true plugin reference
implementation that can be installed by package name without reopening
core Paperclip code

## What Changed

- Added `packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b` as the E2B sandbox
provider plugin package
- Implemented config validation, lease acquire/resume/release/destroy
handlers, workspace realization, and command execution for E2B sandboxes
- Excluded the E2B plugin package from the root workspace so the repo no
longer needs `pnpm-lock.yaml` churn for its third-party dependency graph
- Added package-local development/install support plus a prepack
manifest generator so the published tarball still declares
`@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` and `e2b` runtime dependencies
- Addressed review feedback by fixing sandbox cleanup on acquire
failures, rejecting blank templates, normalizing fractional `timeoutMs`,
and always passing the configured template name to the E2B SDK
- Updated focused Vitest coverage for config normalization, validation,
acquire cleanup, command execution, and lease release behavior
- Updated the Dockerfile deps stage to copy the E2B package manifest so
the policy check stays in sync

## Verification

- `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && pnpm install
--ignore-workspace --no-lockfile`
- `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && pnpm build`
- `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && pnpm --ignore-workspace
test`
- `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && pnpm --ignore-workspace
typecheck`
- `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && npm pack --dry-run`

## Risks

- The package now relies on a prepack manifest rewrite so the
publish-time dependency list stays correct while the repo-local dev
manifest stays workspace-light
- The current repo snapshot is still unreleased, so the generated
publish manifest points at the repo SDK version until the normal release
flow rewrites versions before publish
- Real-world E2B environments may still expose edge cases around
lifecycle timing or sandbox metadata beyond the mocked unit coverage

> 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
- [ ] 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

2026-04-25 11:01:11 -07:00

3 Commits