PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-08 20:32:01 +02:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	7a52dcdc74	fix: repair MCP validation and cancelled execution recovery (#14951 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The tool gateway gives agents access to connected services. Recovery controls what happens when a run stops. > - Generated tool names can exceed the provider limit after the MCP client adds its prefix. > - The same invalid definition can fail each automatic retry. A cancelled run can also hold saved messages without showing its cause. > - This pull request bounds tool names, stops configuration retries, and retains cancellation evidence. > - It shows the stopped run and admits saved input only after the existing safety checks pass. > - The benefit is a clear recovery path that preserves operator Stop and prevents duplicate message delivery. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A long connected MCP tool name makes the provider reject the entire request. Automatic recovery repeats the invalid request. Separately, unexpected legacy cancellations can leave saved input behind a recovery hold. The notice does not identify the stopped run or its cause. Expected behavior Complete MCP names fit the provider limit. Tool-definition errors require configuration repair. Cancelled runs retain their source and reason. The recovery notice shows the cause and saved-message count. Verified unexpected cancellations can start a fresh turn through the existing admission checks. Steps to reproduce 1. Assign an App gallery connection with a long application key and tool name to a Claude agent. 2. Start a run. The provider rejects a name over 128 characters, including its MCP prefix. 3. For cancellation recovery, stop a legacy provider turn without an operator Stop request and send a user message while the recovery hold is active. 4. Inspect the recovery notice and the deferred message queue. Paperclip version or commit Rebased onto master at `cf8ad63c806685bfd7c48e3ed4a919d61a7c55f1`. Deployment mode Hosted or self-hosted server with legacy Claude or Codex execution. Related public work: - Refs #14017. That PR caps name segments. This PR preserves existing short names and uses stable hash aliases for long complete names. It also covers classification and recovery. - Refs #4510. That PR adds a cancellation-source column. This PR records bounded evidence in the existing run result, without a migration. - Refs #12552 and #4506. Those PRs suppress recovery after operator cancellation. This PR preserves operator intent and uses the existing continuation gates. ## What Changed - Bound gateway names with the full provider prefix in the 128-character budget. Retain the original upstream tool name for dispatch and permissions. - Classify invalid tool definitions as configuration failures before diagnostic redaction. Stop automatic retries and continuation attempts for that error code. - Persist cancellation source, expectedness, initiator, reason, and time. Preserve recorded Stop intent when adapter results arrive. Report unexpected started cancellations with closed diagnostic labels. - Show the run cause, saved-message count, and Inspect run link. Offer Continue for eligible unexpected cancellations. Require verified provider stop, empty tool inventory, ownership, and the existing pause, budget, approval, and dependency gates. Use the existing queue for single delivery. - Add regression coverage and update the execution, MCP gateway, and run-log documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Ran `pnpm test:run` and completed its workspace and serialized groups. Initial resource and timing failures passed on isolated reruns. All 149 serialized route suites passed. - Reran the changed server, adapter, and UI suites after the rebase. Coverage includes long-name upstream dispatch, configuration retry suppression, cancellation evidence retention, privacy labels, oversized run projection, and concurrent saved-message delivery. - `pnpm test:e2e tests/e2e/legacy-failure-continuation.spec.ts` passed all six browser scenarios. The recovery notice shows the run cause and inspection link, and each recovery entry point reaches one new response. - Added database-backed checks for active, removed, paused, unavailable, and disabled chat connections. The final continuation and recovery-notice suites passed 167 tests. Externally bound chats hide board Continue and show a usable next action. - All 55 GitHub checks passed on `42afbf1371dcaeb72646e3d8f65c19ff7cddf8de`. Two unrelated Storybook jobs were skipped by their normal conditions. Greptile reviewed that commit at 5/5 with no findings and no open review threads. ## Risks - Long tool names change to aliases. Existing short names stay compatible. The original connection and upstream name remain the dispatch authority. - Invalid tool definitions no longer get automatic retries. An operator must repair the configuration before a new attempt. - Continuation changes apply only to positively identified unexpected legacy cancellations with complete empty tool inventory. Operator Stop, unknown historical cancellations, outstanding tools, and unverified provider termination keep their holds. - No database migration. The added projection fields are optional. Cancellation reason and initiator IDs remain local run evidence; Sentry receives only closed source and initiator-type labels and expectedness. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository editing, shell execution, and GitHub tool use. The runtime does not expose the exact model variant or 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 - [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>	2026-10-02 13:47:59 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	483dbc8890	fix(tool-access): enforce stored grant restrictions (#14915 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip governs the tools that agents can discover and call. > - Stored grants can limit access to a tool, connection, or application. > - The grant matcher must enforce every restriction in that scope. > - A nonmatching allow list fell through to a policy selector matcher that ignores allow. > - This change requires an explicit allow match and validates additional selectors. > - Malformed and unknown restrictions deny access. > - Discovery and execution now enforce the same stored grant limits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #14864 adds the shared database and HTTP discovery fixture used here. Searched existing public PRs for tool grant scope fixes. No duplicate scope-validation fix was found. What happened? A stored grant with a nonmatching `scope.allow` could authorize a tool. Empty or malformed allow lists, unknown selectors, and combined mismatching selectors could also authorize access. The fallback policy matcher does not validate stored grant JSON. Expected behavior An explicit allow list must match the requested tool, connection, or application. Every additional selector must also match. Unknown or malformed restrictions must deny access. Existing null and empty-object scopes keep their broad grant behavior. Steps to reproduce 1. Run `tool-grant-scope.test.ts` on the baseline. 2. Create a deny profile and a grant that names another tool. 3. Attempt discovery or a call for the tool outside the grant. 4. The baseline authorizes access. The fix denies it. Paperclip version or commit The red baseline is `f2e0f1963`. This PR is based on `cad26c6bf`, which includes the merged discovery fix. Deployment mode The company-scoped MCP gateway. Reproduction uses isolated database fixtures and a deterministic HTTP provider. ## What Changed - Require an explicit allow entry to match the gateway or upstream tool name, connection, or application. - Apply all additional selectors after the allow match. - Reject unknown selectors, invalid value types, empty restrictions, and non-object scopes. - Preserve null and empty-object scope compatibility. - Add sixteen regressions, including discovery, successful execution, and revocation through the HTTP gateway. - Document stored grant scope behavior. ## Verification - Red baseline: seven restricted-scope cases and three malformed-root cases fail. HTTP discovery also exposes tools outside the grant. - All 16 grant regressions and 35 adjacent policy tests pass locally. The HTTP test excludes an ungranted tool from discovery, returns 403 for its call, and verifies that no provider call occurs. It also checks successful execution and later revocation. - Server typecheck passes. The final ownership and grant patches also pass 42 combined database and HTTP regressions. - [Full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37011177989) passes for `803fa9440111742672c94c4471e5b98f15dd3b97`: all 54 checks succeed; two optional Storybook checks skip. This includes full typecheck, build, all test shards, all eight E2E shards, runner verification, and the canary dry run. - Greptile scores that exact head 5/5. No review threads remain unresolved. ## Risks Stored scopes with unknown keys or malformed restrictions now deny access. Operators must correct those grants before they can authorize tools. Null and empty-object scopes keep their previous broad behavior. There are no schema, dependency, or API changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, database regressions, and HTTP tests. This session does not expose the exact serving model identifier or context window. ## 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>	2026-10-02 08:21:40 -05:00
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>	2026-07-14 15:48:57 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

DottaandPaperclip

7a52dcdc74

fix: repair MCP validation and cancelled execution recovery (#14951 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The tool gateway gives agents access to connected services. Recovery
controls what happens when a run stops.
> - Generated tool names can exceed the provider limit after the MCP
client adds its prefix.
> - The same invalid definition can fail each automatic retry. A
cancelled run can also hold saved messages without showing its cause.
> - This pull request bounds tool names, stops configuration retries,
and retains cancellation evidence.
> - It shows the stopped run and admits saved input only after the
existing safety checks pass.
> - The benefit is a clear recovery path that preserves operator Stop
and prevents duplicate message delivery.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A long connected MCP tool name makes the provider reject the entire
request. Automatic recovery repeats the invalid request. Separately,
unexpected legacy cancellations can leave saved input behind a recovery
hold. The notice does not identify the stopped run or its cause.

**Expected behavior**

Complete MCP names fit the provider limit. Tool-definition errors
require configuration repair. Cancelled runs retain their source and
reason. The recovery notice shows the cause and saved-message count.
Verified unexpected cancellations can start a fresh turn through the
existing admission checks.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Assign an App gallery connection with a long application key and tool
name to a Claude agent.
2. Start a run. The provider rejects a name over 128 characters,
including its MCP prefix.
3. For cancellation recovery, stop a legacy provider turn without an
operator Stop request and send a user message while the recovery hold is
active.
4. Inspect the recovery notice and the deferred message queue.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Rebased onto master at `cf8ad63c806685bfd7c48e3ed4a919d61a7c55f1`.

**Deployment mode**

Hosted or self-hosted server with legacy Claude or Codex execution.

Related public work:

- Refs #14017. That PR caps name segments. This PR preserves existing
short names and uses stable hash aliases for long complete names. It
also covers classification and recovery.
- Refs #4510. That PR adds a cancellation-source column. This PR records
bounded evidence in the existing run result, without a migration.
- Refs #12552 and #4506. Those PRs suppress recovery after operator
cancellation. This PR preserves operator intent and uses the existing
continuation gates.

## What Changed

- Bound gateway names with the full provider prefix in the 128-character
budget. Retain the original upstream tool name for dispatch and
permissions.
- Classify invalid tool definitions as configuration failures before
diagnostic redaction. Stop automatic retries and continuation attempts
for that error code.
- Persist cancellation source, expectedness, initiator, reason, and
time. Preserve recorded Stop intent when adapter results arrive. Report
unexpected started cancellations with closed diagnostic labels.
- Show the run cause, saved-message count, and Inspect run link. Offer
Continue for eligible unexpected cancellations. Require verified
provider stop, empty tool inventory, ownership, and the existing pause,
budget, approval, and dependency gates. Use the existing queue for
single delivery.
- Add regression coverage and update the execution, MCP gateway, and
run-log documentation.

## Verification

- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passed.
- Ran `pnpm test:run` and completed its workspace and serialized groups.
Initial resource and timing failures passed on isolated reruns. All 149
serialized route suites passed.
- Reran the changed server, adapter, and UI suites after the rebase.
Coverage includes long-name upstream dispatch, configuration retry
suppression, cancellation evidence retention, privacy labels, oversized
run projection, and concurrent saved-message delivery.
- `pnpm test:e2e tests/e2e/legacy-failure-continuation.spec.ts` passed
all six browser scenarios. The recovery notice shows the run cause and
inspection link, and each recovery entry point reaches one new response.
- Added database-backed checks for active, removed, paused, unavailable,
and disabled chat connections. The final continuation and
recovery-notice suites passed 167 tests. Externally bound chats hide
board Continue and show a usable next action.
- All 55 GitHub checks passed on
`42afbf1371dcaeb72646e3d8f65c19ff7cddf8de`. Two unrelated Storybook jobs
were skipped by their normal conditions. Greptile reviewed that commit
at 5/5 with no findings and no open review threads.

## Risks

- Long tool names change to aliases. Existing short names stay
compatible. The original connection and upstream name remain the
dispatch authority.
- Invalid tool definitions no longer get automatic retries. An operator
must repair the configuration before a new attempt.
- Continuation changes apply only to positively identified unexpected
legacy cancellations with complete empty tool inventory. Operator Stop,
unknown historical cancellations, outstanding tools, and unverified
provider termination keep their holds.
- No database migration. The added projection fields are optional.
Cancellation reason and initiator IDs remain local run evidence; Sentry
receives only closed source and initiator-type labels and expectedness.

## Model Used

- OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository editing, shell
execution, and GitHub tool use. The runtime does not expose the exact
model variant or 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
- [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>

2026-10-02 13:47:59 -05:00

DottaandPaperclip

483dbc8890

fix(tool-access): enforce stored grant restrictions (#14915 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip governs the tools that agents can discover and call.
> - Stored grants can limit access to a tool, connection, or
application.
> - The grant matcher must enforce every restriction in that scope.
> - A nonmatching allow list fell through to a policy selector matcher
that ignores allow.
> - This change requires an explicit allow match and validates
additional selectors.
> - Malformed and unknown restrictions deny access.
> - Discovery and execution now enforce the same stored grant limits.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Related: #14864 adds the shared database and HTTP discovery fixture used
here. Searched existing public PRs for tool grant scope fixes. No
duplicate scope-validation fix was found.

**What happened?**
A stored grant with a nonmatching `scope.allow` could authorize a tool.
Empty or malformed allow lists, unknown selectors, and combined
mismatching selectors could also authorize access. The fallback policy
matcher does not validate stored grant JSON.

**Expected behavior**
An explicit allow list must match the requested tool, connection, or
application. Every additional selector must also match. Unknown or
malformed restrictions must deny access. Existing null and empty-object
scopes keep their broad grant behavior.

**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run `tool-grant-scope.test.ts` on the baseline.
2. Create a deny profile and a grant that names another tool.
3. Attempt discovery or a call for the tool outside the grant.
4. The baseline authorizes access. The fix denies it.

**Paperclip version or commit**
The red baseline is `f2e0f1963`. This PR is based on `cad26c6bf`, which
includes the merged discovery fix.

**Deployment mode**
The company-scoped MCP gateway. Reproduction uses isolated database
fixtures and a deterministic HTTP provider.

## What Changed

- Require an explicit allow entry to match the gateway or upstream tool
name, connection, or application.
- Apply all additional selectors after the allow match.
- Reject unknown selectors, invalid value types, empty restrictions, and
non-object scopes.
- Preserve null and empty-object scope compatibility.
- Add sixteen regressions, including discovery, successful execution,
and revocation through the HTTP gateway.
- Document stored grant scope behavior.

## Verification

- Red baseline: seven restricted-scope cases and three malformed-root
cases fail. HTTP discovery also exposes tools outside the grant.
- All 16 grant regressions and 35 adjacent policy tests pass locally.
The HTTP test excludes an ungranted tool from discovery, returns 403 for
its call, and verifies that no provider call occurs. It also checks
successful execution and later revocation.
- Server typecheck passes. The final ownership and grant patches also
pass 42 combined database and HTTP regressions.
- [Full
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37011177989)
passes for `803fa9440111742672c94c4471e5b98f15dd3b97`: all 54 checks
succeed; two optional Storybook checks skip. This includes full
typecheck, build, all test shards, all eight E2E shards, runner
verification, and the canary dry run.
- Greptile scores that exact head 5/5. No review threads remain
unresolved.

## Risks

Stored scopes with unknown keys or malformed restrictions now deny
access. Operators must correct those grants before they can authorize
tools. Null and empty-object scopes keep their previous broad behavior.
There are no schema, dependency, or API changes.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with reasoning, repository inspection, code
execution, database regressions, and HTTP tests. This session does not
expose the exact serving model identifier or context window.

## 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>

2026-10-02 08:21:40 -05:00

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>

2026-07-14 15:48:57 -05:00