mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 20:21:50 +01:00
codex/agent-chat-design
8
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
9dd6526b47 |
fix(security): harden privileged server boundaries (#12776)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server controls secrets, host files, outbound requests, and workspace commands > - A red-team review found cases where restricted callers could cross these trust boundaries > - These cases could expose credentials or let untrusted input reach privileged resources > - This pull request applies least-privilege checks at each affected server boundary > - The benefit is safer agent execution without changing the private-instance bootstrap contract ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Several server paths used authorization, redaction, or content-delivery rules that were too broad. Restricted agent keys could obtain company-level operational data. Some adapter and instruction paths could reach server-owned network or file resources without the required owner approval. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must redact credential values, enforce restricted-key scopes, guard outbound network access, prevent same-origin script execution, and reserve host-level file and command controls for authorized operators. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure an authenticated development instance at the parent commit. 2. Exercise the affected APIs with a restricted agent key or a non-instance-admin company user. 3. Observe that the parent commit returns privileged data or accepts a privileged operation. 4. Repeat on this branch and observe a redacted response, a safe download, or an HTTP 403 response. **Paperclip version or commit** The findings reproduce from commit `39898ab22` and are fixed by this pull request. **Deployment mode** Authenticated self-hosted server and local development modes. **Installation method** Built from source with pnpm. ## What Changed - Redact generic secret `value` and `token` fields recursively in structured logs. - Classify exact and separator-suffixed `KEY` environment names as secrets in company exports. - Limit restricted self-identity responses and protect company run, log, and secret catalog APIs. - Route HTTP adapter requests through DNS-pinned SSRF protection with exact private-origin allowlisting. - Download HTML, SVG, and other script-capable assets with `nosniff` and a sandbox CSP. - Require instance-admin access for external instruction roots and exports that read them. - Block agent-authenticated host command persistence across supported workspace runtime shapes. - Apply the central runtime-management decision before workspace command controls. - Keep the documented first-user instance-admin claim contract unchanged. - Add regression tests and server-owner configuration documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - The Node 24 remediation suite passes with 365 tests. It skips 25 environment-gated tests. - `pnpm build` passes under Node 24. - `git diff --check` passes. - The full local runner reaches known macOS-only general-server harness failures before the serialized route lane. The Linux PR matrix is the authoritative full-suite gate. ## Risks - Restricted agent keys now receive HTTP 403 responses from company-wide run, log, and secret catalog endpoints. - Script-capable assets now download instead of rendering inline. - External instruction roots now require instance-admin access. - Private HTTP adapter endpoints now require an exact origin in `PAPERCLIP_HTTP_ADAPTER_PRIVATE_ENDPOINT_ALLOWLIST`. - Public HTTP adapter endpoints remain enabled. Redirects and metadata or link-local targets remain blocked. - No database migration is required. > 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. The exact serving snapshot and context-window size are not exposed. The model used tool-enabled reasoning, repository access, code execution, and test 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 (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 - [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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2dbaf4a7fa |
External object references across issue surfaces (#8512)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents, issues, approvals, comments, and work products. > - The involved subsystem is issue context: markdown links, issue properties, related work, lists, filters, inbox/sidebar status, and plugin-provided external context. > - The gap is that URLs to external systems currently remain mostly plain links, so humans and agents must manually open them to understand status, identity, and liveness. > - This matters because external work objects such as GitHub issues and pull requests are part of the operational state of a Paperclip company. > - The implementation keeps core provider-neutral: shared contracts, storage, sync, routes, and UI surfaces live in core while providers can contribute detection and status resolution. > - This pull request adds the external object reference foundation, GitHub provider support, issue-surface rendering, filters, sidebar/list/inbox signals, and test/story coverage. > - The benefit is that linked external work becomes inspectable Paperclip context without hardcoding every provider directly into the UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work. Feature request: - Problem: URLs in Paperclip issues, comments, documents, and related surfaces do not expose provider status or object identity inline. - Proposed behavior: detect supported external object URLs, persist normalized references, refresh provider status, and render concise status-aware links across issue surfaces. - Users affected: board users, agents, and maintainers who triage issues containing external work links. - Acceptance: external object references are company-scoped, provider-extensible, visible in key issue surfaces, filterable where relevant, and covered by focused shared/server/UI tests. Related PR search: - No open duplicate PRs found for `external object references`. - Closed related prior attempt: #4556. ## What Changed - Added shared external-object contracts, validators, status/liveness helpers, and plugin protocol declarations. - Added database schema and additive migrations for external objects, source mentions, and display metadata. - Added server services/routes for detecting, syncing, summarizing, refreshing, and resolving external objects across issues, documents, comments, projects, and plugins. - Added a GitHub external-object provider plus plugin SDK authoring docs. - Wired UI presentation across markdown links, comments, issue chat, documents, properties, related work, issue rows, filters, inbox/sidebar badges, and Storybook stories. - Rebasing cleanup: moved the branch onto current `master`, repaired stale worktree provision config, hardened environment-sensitive tests/mocks, and removed committed screenshot artifacts from the PR branch to keep the reviewable file set below tool limits. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/external-objects.test.ts server/src/__tests__/external-object-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` passed after rebasing: 5 files, 56 tests. - Historical branch verification before this PR creation included `pnpm test:run`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`; this PR body does not claim those were rerun after the final rebase. ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new cross-surface sync path on issue/document/comment writes. The implementation uses safe sync wrappers so external-object failures warn instead of blocking core mutations. - Medium: the migrations introduce new tables and indexes. They are additive and company-scoped. - Medium: provider-specific URL parsing can miss or misclassify edge cases. Shared canonicalization tests and provider tests cover current GitHub shapes. - Low: UI badge/filter behavior could add visual noise for object-heavy issues; component tests and Storybook stories cover the intended surfaces. > Roadmap checked: `ROADMAP.md` references the plugin system as the current extension path and does not list a duplicate core feature. Related long-range docs discuss external references, work products, preview URLs, and plugin extension points; this PR implements the scoped external-object reference foundation. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding-agent runtime, with shell and GitHub CLI tool use. Reasoning mode: medium. Exact deployed runtime model ID and context window were not exposed in the 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 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
5a0c1979cf | [codex] Add runtime lifecycle recovery and live issue visibility (#4419) | ||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7f893ac4ec |
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep regressions visible > - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area > - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch overlapping issue APIs > - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat, telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting ## What Changed - Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and blocked-to-todo wake resumption - Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads, compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces - Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material - Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation from local state, and repo verification follow-ups - Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were dropped during branch reconstruction ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts` - `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they are noted as environment-limited ## Risks - Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow rather than isolated UI polish - Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure modes and not just reshaping harness behavior ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning enabled, tool use and local code execution 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) - [ ] 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
|
00898e8194 | Restore feedback trace export fixes | ||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
e13c3f7c6c |
fix: use deterministic UUID in feedback-service test to avoid phone redaction
The PII sanitizer's phone regex matches digit pairs like "4880-8614" that span UUID segment boundaries. Random UUIDs occasionally produce these patterns, causing flaky test failures where sourceRun.id gets partially redacted as [REDACTED_PHONE]. Use a fixed hex-letter-heavy UUID for runId so no cross-boundary digit sequence triggers the phone pattern. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
d12e3e3d1a |
Fix feedback review findings
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
c0d0d03bce |
Add feedback voting and thumbs capture flow
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |