2 commits

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
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>	2026-05-09 11:50:12 -07:00
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	2026-05-03 19:31:28 -07:00