mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
codex/native-completion-master-final-candidate
15
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
b70641f23f |
feat(plugins): support image catalogs and persistent application overlays (#13646)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Plugins extend the application without adding each integration to
Core.
> - A downstream image needs a way to supply prebuilt plugins.
> - Some plugin UI must stay mounted as users move between pages.
> - This change adds an image catalog and a persistent application slot.
> - Operators can upgrade or remove these plugins through their image
and configuration.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Plugin packaging, activation and application UI.
**Problem or motivation**
The built-in plugin catalog is fixed in Core source. Downstream images
cannot add entries through an explicit catalog. Existing page slots also
cannot preserve a small application overlay across route changes.
**Proposed solution**
Read a bounded catalog of prebuilt plugins from the image. Verify its
files before importing manifests. Use the existing managed selection and
plugin lifecycle. Add an `appShellOverlay` slot with account and company
cleanup.
**Alternatives considered**
A downstream fork adds merge work. Script injection provides no plugin
lifecycle. A separate runtime download system adds a second distribution
channel.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the existing plugin system. Related PR #9006 covers runtime
install replication; this change covers immutable image contents. PR
#12555 covers CLI scaffolding. Neither provides this catalog or
application slot. The maintainer requested this work directly.
## What Changed
- Validate catalog identities, confined paths, package versions and
bundle hashes before importing code.
- Apply image selection to persisted plugin installs, including removal
and rollback. Adopt the verified image path from existing npm/local
installs and bind runtime worker/UI entrypoints to verified package
declarations.
- Mount application overlays in both UI shells. Preserve route state and
clear it on account, company and onboarding changes.
- Restrict service-worker offline storage/fallback to hashed public
assets in a separate cache namespace; exclude application HTML and
extension/API data, including after worker restart.
- Document the packaging contract, trust model and rollback
requirements.
## Verification
- Passed `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm
check:token-gates`. Affected server/UI typechecks and builds, plus token
gates, passed again after rebasing onto current master; the 124 focused
tests also passed after rebase.
- Latest focused verification: 124 tests in nine files passed for
catalog/reconciliation/loader, overlay lifecycle, Layout and
service-worker policy. The broader UI/shared/SDK run passed 7,204 tests
in 690 files with canonical `TMPDIR`.
- Real disposable Core/PostgreSQL: catalog install, selection removal,
0.1.0→0.1.1→0.1.0, same-version npm/legacy-path adoption, and
preservation of disabled status passed. Added permissions entered
`upgrade_pending`, withheld UI across restart, and activated only after
explicit operator enable.
- Real Chromium: desktop/mobile layout, route draft retention and
Escape/focus passed with mocked extension responses. A persistent
browser restart retained public hashed-asset offline fallback while
refusing seeded legacy/current private entries and legacy HTML.
- Full `pnpm test:run`: 12,539 passed; 17 failed across six existing
files, stopping later phases. macOS read-only directory renames fail in
runtime-skill-cache and company-skills-service; email tests require an
absent local AgentMail fixture. Native runner/comment-redaction passed
in isolation after temporary Rust setup; agent-conversations also passed
in isolation. No unrelated source was changed to hide failures.
- After rebase, two unchanged chat timing tests failed in CI and passed
locally in isolation. Their CI shard passed on its single retry. All
other current-head CI jobs passed on the initial run; review is 5/5 with
no unresolved threads.
- No live deployment or external plugin service was used.
## Risks
- Plugins are trusted code. The catalog detects packaging errors; it
does not authenticate an untrusted image builder.
- Invalid catalogs fail startup. Images must contain the catalog and
bundles together, with stable directories.
- A host older than this contract lacks the activation guard. Disable
added plugins and remove their configuration keys before reverting to
it.
- Offline navigation now returns 503 instead of replaying cached
application HTML. Only public build assets have offline fallback.
- Rolling back an unapproved permission change retains the approval
gate; review the current manifest and explicitly enable it. A reduced
permission set cannot establish prior approval or prior enabled status.
- Plugin data migrations need their own rollback policy. This change
retains installed records and does not reverse migrations.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), model ID `gpt-6`, with repository inspection,
code execution and browser verification. The runtime does not expose an
exact context-window size.
## 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 (relevant suites; broad
macOS server-run exceptions are documented above)
- [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 (fresh run on 488b3754ae; chat
shard passed its single retry)
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(fresh review on
|
||
|
Jannes StubbemannandClaude Fable 5.1
|
5752d6bd93 |
fix(heartbeat): block runs on a stuck sandbox plugin and re-enable errored bundled plugins at boot (#12957)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents run inside environments. A sandbox environment gets its
sandbox from a provider plugin (for example the bundled
`paperclip.kubernetes-sandbox-provider`), and every run starts by
acquiring a lease through that plugin.
> - When a plugin activation fails once (on a hosted deployment: one
`RPC call "initialize" timed out after 15000ms`), the loader calls
`markError`. That persists `status = error` on the plugin row and
switches off worker auto-restart. Boot activation (`loadAll`), the
bundled-plugin bootstrap and the lazy worker recovery all consider only
`ready` plugins, so the plugin stays in `error` across restarts until an
operator enables it by hand.
> - Every run that needs the provider then fails before dispatch with
`Sandbox provider "kubernetes" is installed via plugin "...", but that
plugin is currently error.` That message matches neither the retryable
classifier (`... but its worker is not running`) nor any configuration
classifier, so the run is recorded as a plain `setup_failed`, the issue
is released, and the scheduler dispatches the same failing run again on
the next tick. On the hosted deployment one company produced about
11,300 identical failed runs, one every 30 seconds, for a week (#12953
is a customer's report of the same condition).
> - Two gaps cause this: the heartbeat treats a condition that only an
operator can change as a transient setup failure, and the bundled-plugin
bootstrap never gives a plugin in `error` another chance even though the
bundle ships with the release image.
> - This pull request classifies the "installed but not ready" lease
failure as `configuration_incomplete`, so the existing recovery path
moves the issue to `blocked` with one recovery action and an actionable
notice; and it re-enables a bundled plugin found in `error` once per
boot, so the next server restart heals the plugin.
> - The benefit is that a stuck provider plugin surfaces as one blocked
issue per task with clear next steps, instead of an endless stream of
identical failed runs, and a restart repairs the plugin without an
operator having to know the plugin API.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #12953 — hosted report: "that plugin is currently error" on every
run for six days, including runs that were retried by hand. This PR
stops the retry loop (issue goes to `blocked`) and makes a server
restart re-activate the bundled plugin. It does not change how a managed
Kubernetes environment is provisioned for a company, which the same
report also mentions.
- Related PR: #9760 pauses the agent for the permanent `Adapter "..." is
not in the configured adapter registry` setup failure. This PR handles a
different permanent condition (plugin not `ready`) and routes it through
the existing `configuration_incomplete` recovery path (issue-level block
with a recovery action) rather than an agent-level pause, because the
gap is on the plugin, not on the agent. The two do not overlap in code
paths.
- No existing issue covers the bundled-plugin re-enable. Bug
description:
**What happened**
A bundled sandbox provider plugin went to `status = error` after one
failed activation. It stayed in `error` across every later server
restart. Every run for every agent on that provider failed lease
acquisition in under a second with `... but that plugin is currently
error.` (`setup_failed`), and the heartbeat kept dispatching new runs
that failed the same way.
**Expected behavior**
A run that fails because its provider plugin is not `ready` is recorded
as a configuration gap and the issue is moved to `blocked` with a notice
that names the plugin and its status, so no further runs are dispatched
until an operator acts. A bundled plugin left in `error` gets a fresh
activation attempt on the next boot.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Install a sandbox provider plugin and create a sandbox environment
that uses it; make it an agent's default environment.
2. Set the plugin row's status to `error` (or make its worker fail
`initialize` once so the loader does it).
3. Assign an issue to the agent and let the heartbeat run it.
4. Observe: the run fails with `... but that plugin is currently error.`
as `setup_failed`, the issue is released, and the next tick dispatches
another run that fails the same way. Restart the server: the plugin is
still `error`.
**Paperclip version**
master at
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
e71ce9a9d3 |
feat: sandbox provider capability contract with fail-closed effective resolution (#11463)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip runs work through adapters and sandbox providers > - Providers need a clear contract so the server can use only verified capabilities > - A declared capability must not grant a method that the live worker did not verify > - This pull request adds manifest declarations and fail-closed effective capability resolution > - The benefit is safe provider reuse across execution targets and run lifecycles ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) **Problem or motivation** Sandbox providers expose different runtime methods. The server needs one safe capability contract that accounts for provider declarations, worker verification, and narrowing configuration. **Proposed solution** Add strict manifest validation for five sandbox capabilities. Resolve effective capabilities as the subset of verified, declared, and narrowed values. Store the result as a frozen execution-target snapshot. **Alternatives considered** Trusting the manifest alone could grant methods that the worker does not support. Trusting only a fixed built-in list would reject valid third-party providers. The intersection rule keeps the verified runtime ceiling and supports both provider types. **Roadmap alignment** This change supports the ACP run lifecycle track and the sandbox provider contract work in the current roadmap. **Additional context** The legacy `supportsReusableLeases` field remains supported. The nested capability validator rejects unknown keys. Missing or unavailable verification resolves all capabilities to `false`. ## What Changed - Add strict `sandboxCapabilities` manifest validation with legacy reusable-lease compatibility. - Carry declarations through the ready-driver projection. - Add fail-closed effective resolution from verified, declared, and narrowed capabilities. - Add narrowing for provider configuration, Kubernetes Job leases, and Daytona sessions. - Add a frozen read-only capability snapshot to execution targets. - Add focused tests and keep existing characterization baselines covered. - Add and update sandbox provider capability documentation. ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-environment-driver-sandbox-capabilities.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/sandbox-capability-contract.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-capabilities.test.ts` - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/startup-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/turn-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/settlement-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/composed-run-characterization.test.ts` - Package typechecks for shared, server, and adapter-utils pass. - Stage-2 security review suites pass with 28 tests. ## Risks The resolver fails closed when verification is absent or unavailable. Providers that rely on undeclared capabilities may see narrower behavior until they expose verified worker methods. The change does not alter the existing native-sync guard. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model ID `gpt-5`, tool use and code execution. The implementation author used this model to assist with the change. ## 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
fdb9a4880d |
fix(security): route paperclipai CLI guidance through safe npx form (CWE-78) (#11400)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip provides CLI commands and guidance for operators and agents > - The `pnpm paperclipai` script can pass argument values through a shell > - Shell re-parsing can execute command substitutions inside quoted values > - This pull request routes guidance through inert-argv `npx paperclipai` commands and adds regression coverage > - The benefit is safer operator guidance across documentation and runtime hints ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request fixes a command-injection-class defect in Paperclip CLI guidance. **What happened?** The `pnpm paperclipai <sub> --flag "$VALUE"` form can re-parse argument values through a shell. A command substitution inside a quoted value can execute on the host. **Expected behavior** Paperclip guidance must pass CLI values as inert argument values. Host-derived values must not appear in copyable commands. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a Paperclip guidance command that uses the `pnpm paperclipai` script. 2. Provide a quoted value that contains a command substitution. 3. Observe that the shell can evaluate the substitution before the CLI starts. 4. Compare the result with the `npx paperclipai` form. **Paperclip version or commit** `5670984b75d109950c968542a0111ebb6967f4da` **Deployment mode** All deployment modes that show or use the affected CLI guidance. **Installation method** Built from source and installed CLI guidance. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific (core bug). **Database mode** Not database-related. **Access context** Both. **Additional context** The earlier merged PR [#11343](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11343) used the unsafe `pnpm exec paperclipai` form. This fresh PR replaces that guidance with the safe `npx paperclipai` form. ## What Changed - Standardize documentation and runtime hints on `npx paperclipai`. - Remove the broken `pnpm exec paperclipai` guidance. - Use a static `<host>` placeholder in private-hostname guidance. - Add regression tests for unsafe forms, continued lines, static hosts, and offline guidance. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master...origin/fix/paperclipai-cli-npx-safe-invocation` passes. - The branch adds `server/src/__tests__/cli-invocation-safety.test.ts` and updates private-hostname tests. - CI must run the new tests, typecheck, lint, and build checks. - Local Vitest execution was not available because this worktree has no installed Vitest binary. ## Risks - The change affects operator and agent documentation text. - The runtime hints now show `<host>` instead of a request-derived host value. - No database schema or migration changes exist. - CI will detect any missed unsafe invocation or type error. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5, exact model ID `gpt-5`, with tool use and code-review assistance. The model used repository inspection, Git operations, and PR preparation. ## 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] CI ran the test suites and they pass; local test execution was unavailable in this worktree - [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 addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Michael NguyenandPaperclip
|
e55d702916 |
feat(plugin-sdk): human-attributed issue comments for chat gateway plugins (#10050)
Adds the `issue.comments.create_human_attributed` capability and `ctx.issues.createComment` `actorUserId` option, with host-side active-human-member verification. LOOA-627. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3db2e6bdd2 |
feat(mcp) [split 8/8]: add e2e coverage and operator docs (#9563)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 8/8 and focuses on end-to-end coverage, operator docs, evals, and release notes > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The complete stack needs discoverable browser scenarios, operator guidance, threat modeling, eval coverage, and a parity proof before merge. - Proposed solution: Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites, docs/evals/release notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver script registration. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/07-ui-apps-activation`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: QA for flag audit and e2e/browser acceptance; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites, docs/evals/release notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver script registration. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - `node --check scripts/e2e-mcp-user-stories.mjs` - `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts --list` — 43 tests discovered - `git diff pap10341-split/08-e2e-docs 6b40e3876d9297105d4ec306e47e46d351c86172` — empty (0 bytes) ## Risks - Browser suites depend on runtime services and environment setup; this PR validates discovery locally while QA owns full flag-on/flag-off execution. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools 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 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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] 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
50bff3b274 |
feat(ui): add collapsible sidebar rail and takeover panes (#7824)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents, work, and company context. > - The board UI sidebar is the main way operators keep orientation across companies, projects, agents, issues, and settings. > - The existing fixed expanded sidebar competes with route-specific navigation, especially company settings and plugin routes that bring their own contextual sidebar. > - A collapsible primary rail preserves global navigation while giving contextual pages more horizontal room. > - This pull request adds a persisted collapsed rail, hover/focus peek, keyboard toggle, and a secondary sidebar takeover model for settings and plugin `routeSidebar` surfaces. > - The benefit is a denser board shell that keeps the app rail available without replacing it when a route needs its own navigation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Paperclip issue: PAP-10638 Create collapsible sidebar branch. Related GitHub PR found during duplicate search: #3838 (`feat/collapsible-sidebar`) covers a similar sidebar area but is a different head branch and implementation. This PR intentionally packages the work from `PAP-10638-collapsable-sidebar` into one reviewable branch. Problem description: The board shell needs a first-class collapsed sidebar mode. Contextual surfaces such as company settings and plugin route sidebars should not replace the global app sidebar; they should collapse the app sidebar to a rail and render their contextual navigation beside it. ## What Changed - Added desktop collapsed/sidebar-peek state to `SidebarContext`, including persisted user pins, route collapse requests, and forced collapse for secondary-sidebar routes. - Replaced the old resizable sidebar pane with `SidebarShell`, which supports a fixed 64px rail, persisted expanded width, keyboard/pointer resizing, and hover/focus peek overlay behavior. - Updated `Sidebar`, sidebar nav items, project/agent sections, badges, and account/company menu presentation for expanded, collapsed, and peeking states. - Added `RequestCollapsedSidebar` and `SecondarySidebar` so routes and plugin `routeSidebar` slots can request contextual sidebar layouts without replacing the primary app sidebar. - Wired company settings and plugin route sidebars into the secondary-pane takeover model. - Added focused Vitest coverage for sidebar state precedence, shell sizing, nav item rail rendering, keyboard shortcuts, layout takeover behavior, and route collapse requests. - Updated plugin authoring docs/spec references for route sidebar behavior. ## Verification Targeted local verification passed: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/context/SidebarContext.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarShell.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx ui/src/components/RequestCollapsedSidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarNavItem.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/KeyboardShortcutsCheatsheet.test.tsx ui/src/hooks/useKeyboardShortcuts.test.tsx ``` Result: 10 test files passed, 88 tests passed. Additional follow-up verification passed after review fixes: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx ui/src/context/SidebarContext.test.tsx && pnpm --filter /ui typecheck ``` Result: 2 test files passed, 28 tests passed, and UI typecheck passed. Latest PR-head remote checks: Paperclip PR workflow, Snyk, Socket, and Greptile are green; commitperclip `review` is cancelled in its security-gate step after filing a non-blocking neutral `security-review` check. Notes: - A direct run without `NODE_ENV=test` loads React's production build in this workspace, where `act` is unavailable; the command above matches the repo stable runner's test environment. - I did not run Playwright/browser e2e or full workspace build/typecheck in this PR-creation heartbeat. - QA screenshots are attached in https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/7824#issuecomment-4661968387 for expanded, collapsed rail, hover peek, and settings secondary-sidebar states. ## Risks - Medium UI layout risk: this changes the board shell and primary sidebar composition across many routes. - Local storage migration risk is low: new collapsed state uses a new key and existing width storage remains scoped to the sidebar width. - Plugin route risk: plugin `routeSidebar` slots now render as secondary panes on desktop, so plugin authors should confirm their route sidebar content fits a 240px contextual pane. - Mobile risk appears low because mobile keeps the drawer model and gates collapsed/peek behavior to desktop. > 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with local shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. Exact service-side model identifier and context window were not exposed in this 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 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 - [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 - [ ] 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
38c185fb8b |
[codex] Add agent permissions and controls plan (#6386)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies by keeping task ownership, approvals, and operator control inside one control plane. > - Agent permissions and plugin-hosted company settings sit on the boundary between autonomy and governance. > - V1 needs scoped task assignment rules, plugin extension points, and clearer company access surfaces without weakening company boundaries. > - The branch builds the core authorization service, plugin SDK/host APIs, and UI simplifications needed to support those controls. > - Paperclip EE plugin surfaces were intentionally moved out of this core PR per review direction, so this PR now carries only the public core/plugin infrastructure work. > - The latest updates preserve the PAP-9937 branch changes that belong in this PR, remove the `design/` artifacts, and exclude the experimental `plugin-briefs` package. > - Greptile feedback was applied through the authorization/audit paths and the final cleanup commit was re-reviewed at 5/5 with no unresolved Greptile threads. > - The benefit is safer assignment control with extension hooks for richer permission products while preserving simple defaults for normal operators. ## What Changed - Added scoped task-assignment authorization decisions and routed issue/agent assignment mutations through the authorization service. - Added plugin SDK and host APIs for company settings slots, authorization policy/grant management, assignment previews, and bridge invocation scope propagation. - Simplified core company access UI and moved advanced controls behind plugin-provided settings surfaces. - Added retry-now affordances for blocked issue next-step notices. - Added protected-assignment enforcement for persisted agent/project/issue policies, including explicit-grant fallback behavior. - Added incremental principal-access compatibility backfill for active agent memberships and role-default human permission grants. - Added the Markdown code block wrap action fix from the latest branch changes. - Removed `design/` artifacts from the PR and removed `packages/plugins/plugin-briefs` from the final diff. - Addressed Greptile feedback for plugin actor sanitization, legacy membership handling, audit pagination, unknown grant-scope metadata, and startup test mocks. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 2 files passed, 54 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 3 files passed, 62 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` -> 3 files passed, 28 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` -> passed. - `git diff --check` -> passed. - `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` -> passed. - `CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` -> passed with no lockfile update. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.interaction.test.tsx` -> 1 test passed. - `git ls-files design packages/plugins/plugin-briefs | wc -l` -> 0. - GitHub CI on `40cd83b53` -> all checks passed, merge state `CLEAN`. - Greptile on `40cd83b53` -> 5/5, 102 files reviewed, 0 comments/annotations added, 0 unresolved review threads. - Confirmed the PR diff contains no `design/`, `packages/plugins/plugin-briefs`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks - Medium: task assignment authorization paths are behaviorally stricter for protected/private policy data, so existing plugin-authored policies may block assignment until explicit grants or approval flows are configured. - Medium: plugin-host authorization APIs expand the surface area available to trusted plugins and need careful review for company scoping. - Low: startup now performs a principal-access compatibility backfill, but the migration and runtime backfill use conflict-tolerant inserts. > 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 coding agent, tool-enabled workflow with shell, git, and GitHub CLI access. ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8f45d12447 |
docs: update plugin authoring guide for managed resources (#6261)
## Thinking Path
<!--
Required. Trace your reasoning from the top of the project down to this
specific change. Start with what Paperclip is, then narrow through the
subsystem, the problem, and why this PR exists. Use blockquote style.
Aim for 5-8 steps. See CONTRIBUTING.md for full examples.
-->
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The plugin system is how optional capabilities extend the control
plane without adding hidden core behavior.
> - Plugin authors need accurate guidance for the current managed
capabilities model.
> - The existing docs under-described managed skills and the
routine-first pattern for durable plugin automation.
> - Content-oriented plugins such as LLM Wiki should model recurring
work with visible managed agents, projects, routines, and skills.
> - This pull request aligns the authoring guide, local development
guide, and longer plugin spec with that model.
> - The benefit is clearer plugin guidance that preserves Paperclip
visibility, budgets, pause controls, and audit trails.
## What Changed
<!-- Bullet list of concrete changes. One bullet per logical unit. -->
- Documented plugin-managed skills alongside managed agents, projects,
and routines.
- Added guidance for content-oriented plugins to use managed projects,
agents, skills, and routines instead of private daemon-like state.
- Updated the manifest/spec examples and capability lists for current
plugin-managed surfaces.
- Clarified when to use managed routines instead of plugin runtime jobs
for board-visible recurring work.
- Added a short local plugin development note pointing authors toward
routine-first automation.
- Addressed Greptile docs feedback by marking top-level `launchers` as
legacy and removing a redundant `slug` from the managed skill example.
## Verification
<!--
How can a reviewer confirm this works? Include test commands, manual
steps, or both. For UI changes, include before/after screenshots.
-->
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD`
- Reviewed `ROADMAP.md`; this is docs alignment for the completed plugin
system milestone and does not add roadmap-level core feature work.
- Greptile Review: success on the latest head; `3 files reviewed, 0
comments added` after follow-up fixes.
- GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head, including Build,
Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, serialized server suites,
e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, Snyk, and aggregate `verify`.
## Risks
<!--
What could go wrong? Mention migration safety, breaking changes,
behavioral shifts, or "Low risk" if genuinely minor.
-->
- Low risk: documentation-only changes.
- Main risk is documentation drift if the plugin API changes again
before these docs are reviewed.
> 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
<!--
Required. Specify which AI model was used to produce or assist with
this change. Be as descriptive as possible - include:
• Provider and model name (e.g., Claude, GPT, Gemini, Codex)
• Exact model ID or version (e.g., claude-opus-4-6,
gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09)
• Context window size if relevant (e.g., 1M context)
• Reasoning/thinking mode if applicable (e.g., extended thinking,
chain-of-thought)
• Any other relevant capability details (e.g., tool use, code execution)
If no AI model was used, write "None — human-authored".
-->
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell and GitHub connector tool
use.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3c73ed26b5 |
Expand plugin host surface (#5205)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The plugin system is the extension boundary for optional product capabilities > - Rich plugins need more than a worker entrypoint: they need scoped database storage, local project folders, managed agents/routines, host navigation, and reusable UI components > - The LLM Wiki work exposed those missing host surfaces while keeping plugin code outside the core control plane > - This pull request expands the core plugin host, SDK, server APIs, and UI bridge so plugins can declare and use those surfaces > - The benefit is that future plugins can integrate with Paperclip through documented, validated contracts instead of bespoke server or UI imports ## What Changed - Added plugin-managed database namespaces and migration tracking, including Drizzle schema/migration files and SQL validation for namespace isolation. - Added server support for plugin local folders, managed agents, managed routines, scoped plugin APIs, and plugin operation visibility. - Expanded shared plugin manifest/types/validators and SDK host/testing/UI exports for richer plugin surfaces. - Added reusable UI pieces for file trees, managed routines, resizable sidebars, route sidebars, and plugin bridge initialization. - Updated plugin docs and example plugins to use the expanded host and SDK surface. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-agents.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts ui/src/api/plugins.test.ts ui/src/components/FileTree.test.tsx ui/src/components/ResizableSidebarPane.test.tsx ui/src/pages/PluginPage.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts` passed: 11 files, 67 tests. - Confirmed this PR changes 89 files and does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`. ## Risks - Medium: this expands plugin host contracts across db/shared/server/ui and includes a new core migration (`0076_useful_elektra.sql`). - The plugin database namespace validator is intentionally restrictive; plugin authors may need follow-up affordances for SQL patterns that remain blocked. - Merge this before the LLM Wiki plugin PR so the plugin can resolve the new SDK and host APIs. > 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 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub workflow. Context window size was not exposed by the 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9c6f551595 |
[codex] Add plugin orchestration host APIs (#4114)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The plugin system is the extension path for optional capabilities that should not require core product changes for every integration. > - Plugins need scoped host APIs for issue orchestration, documents, wakeups, summaries, activity attribution, and isolated database state. > - Without those host APIs, richer plugins either cannot coordinate Paperclip work safely or need privileged core-side special cases. > - This pull request adds the plugin orchestration host surface, scoped route dispatch, a database namespace layer, and a smoke plugin that exercises the contract. > - The benefit is a broader plugin API that remains company-scoped, auditable, and covered by tests. ## What Changed - Added plugin orchestration host APIs for issue creation, document access, wakeups, summaries, plugin-origin activity, and scoped API route dispatch. - Added plugin database namespace tables, schema exports, migration checks, and idempotent replay coverage under migration `0059_plugin_database_namespaces`. - Added shared plugin route/API types and validators used by server and SDK boundaries. - Expanded plugin SDK types, protocol helpers, worker RPC host behavior, and testing utilities for orchestration flows. - Added the `plugin-orchestration-smoke-example` package to exercise scoped routes, restricted database namespaces, issue orchestration, documents, wakeups, summaries, and UI status surfaces. - Kept the new orchestration smoke fixture out of the root pnpm workspace importer so this PR preserves the repository policy of not committing `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Updated plugin docs and database docs for the new orchestration and database namespace surfaces. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master`, resolved conflicts, and removed `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the final PR diff. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/client.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-scoped-api-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-sdk-orchestration-contract.test.ts` - From `packages/plugins/examples/plugin-orchestration-smoke-example`: `pnpm exec vitest run --config ./vitest.config.ts` - `pnpm --dir packages/plugins/examples/plugin-orchestration-smoke-example run typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PR CI on latest head `293fc67c`: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`, and `security/snyk` all passed. ## Risks - Medium risk: this expands plugin host authority, so route auth, company scoping, and plugin-origin activity attribution need careful review. - Medium risk: database namespace migration behavior must remain idempotent for environments that may have seen earlier branch versions. - Medium risk: the orchestration smoke fixture is intentionally excluded from the root workspace importer to avoid a `pnpm-lock.yaml` PR diff; direct fixture verification remains listed above. - Low operational risk from the PR setup itself: the branch is rebased onto current `master`, the migration is ordered after upstream `0057`/`0058`, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the final diff. > 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`. Roadmap checked: this work aligns with the completed Plugin system milestone and extends the plugin surface rather than duplicating an unrelated planned core feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in a tool-enabled CLI environment. Exact hosted model build and context-window size are not exposed by the runtime; reasoning/tool use were enabled for repository inspection, editing, testing, git operations, and PR creation. ## 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 (N/A: no core UI screen change; example plugin UI contract is covered by tests) - [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
|
30888759f2 | Clarify plugin authoring and external dev workflow | ||
|
Dotta
|
80cdbdbd47 | Add plugin framework and settings UI | ||
|
gsxdsm
|
f81d2ebcc4 | Enhance plugin architecture by introducing agent tool contributions and plugin-to-plugin communication. Update workspace plugin definitions for direct OS access and refine UI extension surfaces. Document new capabilities for plugin settings UI and lifecycle management. | ||
|
Dotta
|
df0f101fbd | plugin spec draft ideas v0 |