mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-08 21:03:51 +02:00
codex/plugin-task-execution
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
dd777f4b73 |
feat(dot): complete onboarding and expand governed Runner capabilities (#15414)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages AI agents, their work, and their permissions.
> - Paperclip Runner supplies the same admitted tool authority to each
provider.
> - The Dot provider in #15402 needs reliable onboarding and useful
agent capabilities.
> - An idle Dot could not start work, assign a human, read skills, or
produce a workspace artifact.
> - Pairing also relied on a second configuration save before ordinary
admission could work.
> - This pull request adds governed idle admission and shared Runner
tools, and completes pairing atomically.
> - Operators can test Dot with fresh data while keeping normal company,
approval, budget, and run ownership checks.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Paperclip Runner, dedicated Dot MCP access, OAuth onboarding,
experimental settings, and empty worktree startup. This PR builds on
merged provider PR #15402. It reuses the merged MCP gateway from #14846
and assistant connection work from #14933 and #15380.
**Problem or motivation**
An idle Dot could see assignments but could not act on a conversation
request until someone created a task first. Its Runner catalog could not
assign tasks to humans or read pinned skills and workspace files.
First-time OAuth discovery and pairing also needed browser fixes, and a
completed pairing did not persist its binding reference on the agent.
**Proposed solution**
Keep Dot within the existing Runner. Admit a visible agent-authored
intake task for idle requests. Add people, human assignment, cross-task,
skill, and optional sandbox workspace tools through shared authority.
Relay assigned app calls through the configured MCP gateway. Add lease
renewal and follow-up references. Save pairing and its configuration
revision atomically. Show prerequisites and provide a complete copy
prompt.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the experimental provider in #15402. It uses the existing
governed gateway, task model, skills, artifact path, and native Runner.
It adds no separate execution subsystem.
## What Changed
- Add a standalone OpenAI Dot agent choice with an independent
experimental opt-in. It works with the general Runner option off.
Require Assistant connections (MCP), authenticated sign-in, and public
HTTPS for pairing.
- Use Dot’s own option for company package import. Allow an unpaired Dot
configuration to save after external billing acknowledgement; task
admission still requires pairing. Prepare the shared dev binary for
Dot-only opt-in.
- Label saved Dot agents as OpenAI Dot. Use prerequisite-check copy in
setup and runtime configuration.
- Route Dot creation directly to pairing after explicit external billing
acknowledgement. Hide local CLI, model, and harness setup for Dot.
Preserve the shared Runner implementation and canonical API type. Other
Runner providers still require their general opt-in.
- Add an empty worktree option with fresh signing keys and no production
data copy.
- Fix public-client OAuth negotiation, discovery compatibility, and
optional separate browser authorization origin.
- Add one-use pairing consent preview, clear copied setup instructions,
and atomic binding persistence and cleanup.
- Add idle request admission with stable request IDs and normal
scheduling, permissions, budgets, and task ownership.
- Add identity and people discovery, human task assignment and
reassignment, and authorized cross-task comments and documents.
- Read assigned skill files from pinned manifests. Relay assigned app
calls through the merged gateway without exposing credentials.
- Add an off-by-default workspace bridge. Constrain paths and writes.
Run commands in a deny-by-default OS sandbox with no network or injected
credentials. Reserve mutations before effects and never blindly repeat
uncertain work.
- Add rolling lease renewal, task pagination, bounded operation limits,
and deduplicated follow-up references without comment bodies in
webhooks.
- Add an off-by-default attachment reading setting. Restrict reads to
files on the current assigned task. Verify size and hash, cache bounded
verified copies per run, paginate text or binary bytes, and recheck live
authority before returning.
- Keep file grants operator-owned. Reject agent self-grants across
configuration routes. Preserve attachment consent in create/import
forms. Close generic API file bypasses while retaining current-run
response snapshots and permitted uploads.
- Keep provider limits explicit. Do not inherit a Dot binding,
attachment permission, or workspace permission when hiring another
agent.
- Include the required Markdown format in cross-task document writes and
validate the API title limit. Verify real creation and revision
persistence.
- Restrict command execution to Linux bubblewrap with descendant
containment. macOS retains workspace file tools and artifact publishing,
while refusing command calls. Explain the platform limit in setup.
- Exclude Paperclip instance state from workspace files, uploads,
artifact publication, and sandbox commands. Protect nested directories
and case variants. Fail closed when the directory protection scan
exceeds 4,096 directories.
- Add static UI compression for slow public tunnels. Document setup, the
complete tool inventory, and qualification limits.
## Verification
- Merge preparation on `00ca2c75b` integrates merged base #15402 and
master `fc6304dfe`. The ancestry commit preserves the reviewed follow-up
source tree. The subsequent security fix excludes instance state from
file tools, uploads, artifact publication, and sandbox commands. It
preserves private task authorization and task monitors. It regenerates
the combined tool catalog, seeded catalog digest, and protocol manifest.
Workspace typecheck, full build, and UI token gates pass. All sixteen
real Dot broker cases and 93 company import cases pass after the review
fixes and creator-attribution test correction. The exported
human-assignment catalog and Unicode page boundaries are also fixed. All
ten catalog tests and nine workspace/skill bridge tests pass. All 35
workspace bridge and authority tests passed after the instance-state
fix, including real macOS commands in that intermediate version. The
subsequent document and descendant-containment fixes pass 44 focused
tests across bridge, authority, and setup UI, with six Linux command
cases skipped on macOS. Real cross-task documents pass the route
validator and persist two revisions. macOS refuses command execution and
does not advertise the tool. Full workspace typecheck and build, changed
server/UI typechecks, and token gates pass again on the final commit.
Greptile rates final head
|
||
|
|
fc6304dfe5 |
feat(runner): add experimental OpenAI Dot provider over MCP Events (#15402)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents, tasks, permissions, and execution budgets. > - Paperclip Runner gives each provider the same admitted task and tool authority. > - OpenAI Dot runs outside the local process tree and needs asynchronous work delivery. > - The merged MCP gateway supplies OAuth consent and signed event delivery. > - A personal assistant grant cannot safely stand in for an assigned agent. > - This pull request adds a separate Dot agent connection and a durable Rust Runner bridge. > - The operator can assign work to Dot and inspect its accepted work, tool receipts, and result. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Agent or provider** OpenAI Dot, as an experimental provider of the existing Paperclip Runner adapter. **Why this adapter is useful** An operator can assign normal Paperclip tasks to an existing Dot. Dot can read its mailbox, request work on an assigned task, use admitted task tools, and submit a result. Paperclip keeps company scope, checkout, approvals, known budget limits, and activity attribution. **How the agent is invoked** A dedicated `/mcp/runner` OAuth resource pairs one Dot grant with one agent. A signed MCP mailbox event wakes Dot. Dot explicitly accepts the assignment. The Rust Runner owns the durable turn and operation receipts. The first release supports self-hosted instances with a local Runner controller. **Additional context** This extends the merged public MCP gateway from #14846 and the assistant invitation and device-consent work from #14933. This also integrates the merged assistant tool and configuration expansion in #15380. Dot retains its dedicated agent resource and cannot receive personal configuration permission. The public assistant connection remains a personal connection. ## What Changed - Add a durable Rust Dot provider and its TypeScript Runner driver. - Add closed PRP v3 external-provider operations and native execution input v6. - Add company-scoped pairing, mailbox, assignment, and operation records. - Reuse merged browser/device consent, client metadata verification, webhook admissions, refresh, secret rotation, and warm-standby gates. - Keep Dot scopes, issuer, grants, event workers, and tool access separate from personal assistant access. - Add Dot configuration, pairing, readiness, and consent UI. Keep agent grants out of the personal Connections entry. - Regenerate the Dot-only migration after master. Preserve published gateway migrations. Make the new migration safe to reapply. - Document setup, recovery, accounting limits, evidence, and remaining account qualification. - Reverify reconnect callbacks and wake outstanding work with a fresh mailbox reference; preserve the existing assignment and operation receipts. - Clean up Dot bindings and waiting runs on OAuth revoke and refresh-token replay. Old grants cannot revoke replacement bindings. - Restore the pairing reference when an unsaved agent form is reopened; document board-only pairing routes in OpenAPI. - Accept a clean Rust exit after the acknowledged shutdown receipt. Unexpected exits still require recovery. - Clear the cached binding after a successful revoke so a failed connection refresh cannot restore it. - Add production-component Storybook states and screenshots for pairing and connection review. All preview account data is synthetic. - Persist normalized completion, serialize Dot turns and durable work admission, and poll subscription readiness. - Serialize mailbox writes and cursor reads; retain paused fence acknowledgement without task authority. - Authorize admitted review runs without changing the worker assignee. Include the fenced assignment ID in production stop notices. ## Verification - This PR integrates master `4a8178e9c`. Dot migration `0317_messy_famine.sql` follows the published history and is safe to reapply. The merge preserves the reserved migration connection, batch-commit handling, private task checks, task monitors, and native accounting. - Local workspace typecheck, full build, and UI token gates pass. The server typecheck passes after the review fixes. Database and native executor regressions pass. - All twelve real Rust/PostgreSQL Dot integration tests and twelve Dot driver tests pass. The tests cover native document writing and finalization, durable replay, queue admission, mailbox ordering, admitted reviews, stale authority, production stop references, and paused acknowledgements. - Current head `d0e7e0626` passes all 57 checks: 53 pass and four are intentionally skipped. This includes full typecheck, build, tests, Rust Runner verification, browser E2E, release verification, and Canary Dry Run. Greptile rates this exact head 5/5. All review threads are resolved. - The full local root test run is slower than the sharded CI run and has not completed. The full CI test gates pass on the current commit. Focused local regressions pass. - Real-account pairing and event delivery on this base commit remain unqualified. Live account and setup proof are recorded in the follow-up #15414. The following screenshots use synthetic preview data. They show the production pairing component and do not qualify a real account or the full agent setup journey.   ## Risks - This base adapter uses `PAPERCLIP_ENABLE_OPENAI_DOT=1` plus Public MCP and Paperclip Runner. The separate experimental-settings follow-up in #15414 replaces this environment flag with saved operator settings. - Dot does not expose provider token usage or cost. The operator must acknowledge external billing. Known Paperclip budget gates still apply. - Cancellation fences Paperclip authority. It does not confirm that Dot stopped all external activity. - Assigned skill files and third-party MCP bindings are unsupported and reject admission. There is no mounted workspace, model selector, or provider thread identifier. - Hosted agent-broker and remote controller deployments are not qualified. - The new migration follows the merged master history. Existing prototype databases still need the normal master migration history before this Dot-only migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact deployment ID and context window size are not exposed in this session. Capabilities used: reasoning, repository editing, code execution, and test inspection. ## 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 #123` 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 references) - [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 - [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> |
||
|
|
f712cedbc2 |
feat(mcp) [split 7/8]: activate Apps and gateway UI (#9562)
## 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 7/8 and focuses on Apps/Gateways UI and feature-flagged activation > - 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 standalone UI foundation needs feature-flagged routes, navigation, app detail flows, gateways, Storybook scenarios, and QA configuration. - Proposed solution: Adds Apps/Gateways pages and components, navigation/route activation, remaining page integrations, Storybook stories, and QA Vite configuration. - 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/06-ui-tools-foundation`. - 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: UXDesigner sanity pass on Apps/Gateways flows and flag-off behavior; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds Apps/Gateways pages and components, navigation/route activation, remaining page integrations, Storybook stories, and QA Vite configuration. - 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` - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean - Focused UI Vitest run with `NODE_ENV=test` — 17 files, 147 tests passed ## Risks - Navigation or flag regressions could expose incomplete experiences; activation remains controlled by existing experimental settings. - 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. ## UI Evidence QA captured these from the live Garden MCP split stack at 1440px and verified clean rendering:    --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
a116713b9a |
feat(mcp) [split 6/8]: add Tools and Profiles UI foundation (#9561)
## 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 6/8 and focuses on UI API, shared components, and Tools/Profile surfaces > - 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: Operators need typed clients and administration surfaces that compile independently before navigation exposes them. - Proposed solution: Adds UI APIs, hooks, libraries, shared components, Tools/Profiles pages, and the plugin settings consumer required by the new company-scoped API. - 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/05-runtime-integration`. - 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: UXDesigner sanity pass on Tools/Profile surfaces; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds UI APIs, hooks, libraries, shared components, Tools/Profiles pages, and the plugin settings consumer required by the new company-scoped API. - 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` - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean - Focused UI Vitest run with `NODE_ENV=test` — 28 files, 183 tests passed ## Risks - Large dead-code UI additions can drift from activation routes; PR 7 supplies the registration layer and top-level parity catches omissions. - 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. ## UI Evidence QA captured these from the live Garden MCP split stack at 1440px and verified clean rendering:    --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
d67347be77 |
[codex] Provider vault secrets UX (#6381)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents that need scoped, auditable access to secrets > - Hosted and external deployments need provider vault configuration without exposing secret values in Paperclip metadata > - AWS Secrets Manager vault setup previously required too much manual operator knowledge > - Provider vault discovery and removal belong together as an independent secrets-management improvement > - This pull request adds AWS provider vault discovery/prefill plus vault removal flows > - The benefit is a safer operator path for configuring external secret storage before higher-level cloud workflows depend on it ## What Changed - Added shared validators/types for AWS provider vault discovery payloads and safe provider metadata. - Implemented AWS provider vault discovery preview on the server. - Added provider vault removal service/route behavior. - Added Secrets page UI for discovery prefill, removal messaging, and related rendering coverage. - Added Storybook provider-vault fixtures and captured screenshots for the new UX states. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/secret.test.ts server/src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts ui/src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx` - Result: 4 files passed, 1 embedded Postgres-backed file skipped on this host because local Postgres init was unavailable. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Storybook screenshot capture against `Product/Secrets` on `http://127.0.0.1:60381/iframe.html?id=product-secrets--secrets-inventory&viewMode=story&globals=theme:dark` ## Screenshots Provider vaults tab after this change:  AWS discovery candidate flow:  Provider vault removal confirmation:  ## Risks - Secret provider metadata handling must remain non-sensitive; validators reject credential-bearing Vault URLs and sensitive AWS discovery keys. - AWS discovery depends on deployment credentials being configured correctly outside Paperclip-managed company secrets. > 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-based coding agent with local shell/git/tool use. Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the local Paperclip adapter 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> |