PAP-1229 Agent OS Follow-up Plan

Date: 2026-04-08 Related issue: PAP-1229 Companion analysis: doc/plans/2026-04-08-agent-os-technical-report.md

Goal

Turn the agent-os research into a low-risk Paperclip execution plan that preserves Paperclip's control-plane model while testing the few runtime ideas that appear worth adopting.

Decision summary

Paperclip should not absorb agent-os as a product model or orchestration layer.

Paperclip should evaluate agent-os in three narrow areas:

1. optional agent runtime for selected local adapters
2. capability-based runtime permission vocabulary
3. snapshot-backed disposable execution roots

Everything else should stay out of scope unless those three experiments produce strong evidence.

Success condition

This work is successful when Paperclip has:

• a clear yes/no answer on whether agent-os is worth supporting as an execution substrate
• a concrete adapter/runtime experiment with measurable results
• a proposed runtime capability model that fits current Paperclip adapters
• a clear decision on whether snapshot-backed execution roots are worth integrating

Non-goals

Do not:

• replace Paperclip heartbeats, issues, comments, approvals, or budgets with agent-os primitives
• introduce Rust/sidecar requirements for all local execution paths
• migrate all adapters at once
• add runtime workflow/queue abstractions to Paperclip core

Existing Paperclip integration points

The plan should stay anchored to these existing surfaces:

• packages/adapter-utils/src/types.ts
  • adapter contract, runtime service reporting, session metadata, and capability normalization targets
• server/src/services/heartbeat.ts
  • execution entry point, log capture, issue comment summaries, and cost reporting
• server/src/services/execution-workspaces.ts
  • current workspace lifecycle and git-oriented cleanup/readiness model
• server/src/services/plugin-loader.ts
  • typed host capability boundary and extension loading patterns
• local adapter implementations in packages/adapters/*/src/server/
  • current execution behavior to compare against an agent-os-backed path

Phase plan

Phase 0: constraints and experiment design

Objective:

• make the evaluation falsifiable before writing integration code

Deliverables:

• short experiment brief added to this document or a child issue
• chosen first runtime target: pi_local or opencode_local
• baseline metrics definition

Questions to lock down:

• what exact developer experience should improve
• what security/isolation property we expect to gain
• what failure modes are unacceptable
• whether the prototype is adapter-only or a deeper internal runtime abstraction spike

Exit criteria:

• a single first target chosen
• measurable comparison criteria agreed on

Recommended metrics:

• cold start latency
• session resume reliability across heartbeats
• transcript/log quality
• implementation complexity
• operational complexity on local dev machines

Phase 1: agentos_local spike

Objective:

• prove that Paperclip can drive one local agent through an agent-os runtime without breaking heartbeat semantics

Suggested scope:

• implement a new experimental adapter, agentos_local, or a feature-flagged runtime path under one existing adapter
• start with pi_local or opencode_local
• keep Paperclip's existing heartbeat, issue, workspace, and comment flow authoritative

Minimum implementation shape:

• adapter accepts model/runtime config
• server/src/services/heartbeat.ts still owns run lifecycle
• execution result still maps into existing AdapterExecutionResult
• session state still fits current sessionParams / sessionDisplayId flow

What to verify:

• checkout and heartbeat flow still work end to end
• resume across multiple heartbeats works
• logs/transcripts remain readable in the UI
• failure paths surface cleanly in issue comments and run logs

Exit criteria:

• one agent type can run reliably through the new path
• documented comparison against the existing local adapter path
• explicit recommendation: continue, pause, or abandon

Phase 2: capability-based runtime permissions

Objective:

• introduce a Paperclip-native capability vocabulary without coupling the product to agent-os

Suggested scope:

• extend adapter config schema vocabulary for runtime permissions
• prototype normalized capabilities such as:
  • fs.read
  • fs.write
  • network.fetch
  • network.listen
  • process.spawn
  • env.read

Integration targets:

• packages/adapter-utils/src/types.ts
• adapter config-schema support
• server-side runtime config validation
• future board-facing UI for permissions, if needed

What to avoid:

• building a full human policy UI before the vocabulary is proven useful
• forcing every adapter to implement capability enforcement immediately

Exit criteria:

• documented capability schema
• one adapter path using it meaningfully
• clear compatibility story for non-agent-os adapters

Phase 3: snapshot-backed execution root experiment

Objective:

• determine whether a layered/snapshotted root model improves some Paperclip workloads

Suggested scope:

• evaluate it only for disposable or non-repo-heavy tasks first
• keep git worktree-based repo editing as the default for codebase tasks

Promising use cases:

• routine-style runs
• ephemeral preview/test environments
• isolated document/artifact generation
• tasks that do not need full git history or branch semantics

Integration targets:

• server/src/services/execution-workspaces.ts
• workspace realization paths called from server/src/services/heartbeat.ts

Exit criteria:

• clear statement on which workload classes benefit
• clear statement on which workloads should stay on worktrees
• go/no-go decision for broader implementation

Phase 4: typed host tool evaluation

Objective:

• identify where Paperclip should prefer explicit typed tools over ambient shell access

Suggested scope:

• compare agent-os host-toolkit ideas with existing plugin and runtime-service surfaces
• choose 1-2 sensitive operations that should become typed tools

Good candidates:

• git metadata/status inspection
• runtime service inspection
• deployment/preview status retrieval
• generated artifact publishing

Exit criteria:

• one concrete proposal for typed-tool adoption in Paperclip
• clear statement on whether this belongs in plugins, adapters, or core services

Recommended sequencing

Recommended order:

1. Phase 0
2. Phase 1
3. Phase 2
4. Phase 3
5. Phase 4

Reasoning:

• Phase 1 is the fastest way to invalidate or validate the entire agent-os direction
• Phase 2 is valuable even if Phase 1 is abandoned
• Phase 3 should wait until there is confidence that the runtime approach is operationally worthwhile
• Phase 4 is useful independently but should be informed by what Phase 1 and Phase 2 expose

Risks

Technical risk

• agent-os introduces Rust sidecar and packaging complexity that may outweigh runtime benefits

Product risk

• runtime experimentation could blur the boundary between Paperclip as control plane and Paperclip as execution platform

Integration risk

• session semantics, log formatting, and failure behavior may degrade relative to current local adapters

Scope risk

• a small runtime spike could expand into an adapter-system rewrite if not kept tightly bounded

Guardrails

To keep this effort controlled:

• keep all experiments behind a clearly experimental adapter or feature flag
• do not change issue/comment/approval/budget semantics to suit the runtime
• measure against current local adapters instead of judging in isolation
• stop after Phase 1 if the operational burden is already clearly too high

Proposed next action

The next concrete action should be a small implementation spike issue:

• title: Prototype experimental agentos_local runtime for one local adapter
• target adapter: opencode_local unless pi_local is materially easier
• expected output: code spike, short verification notes, and a continue/stop recommendation

If leadership wants planning only and no spike yet, this document is the handoff artifact for that decision.