mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-27 02:44:50 +01:00
docs/external-task-protocol-replacement
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
a7186dce4b |
fix(plugin-sdk): thread companyId through configChanged + fail-closed cross-tenant guard (LOOA-687) (#10096)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - First-party **plugins** run as isolated workers spawned by the host
`plugin-loader`, reading company-scoped config through a governed
`ctx.config.get(companyId)` channel.
> - The host→worker `configChanged` RPC carries `{ config, companyId }`,
but the SDK dispatch dropped the scope — `onConfigChanged(newConfig)`
was companyId-blind by design — so a **proactive** worker kept a single
worker-global config.
> - #10092 added a startup replay that fans out **every** stored
company's config through `configChanged`. With no deterministic
ordering, a plugin configured for more than one distinct company ends up
running as whichever DB row was delivered last.
> - That is a latent cross-tenant identity/secret confusion bug: one
company's bot token could be applied to another company's traffic.
> - This pull request threads `companyId` through `onConfigChanged` and
adds a fail-closed cross-tenant guard at the SDK layer, so a
single-tenant worker can never silently collapse to a second company's
config.
> - The benefit is that the config-delivery class is fixed at the SDK
boundary — before any genuinely multi-company proactive plugin ships —
without changing today's single-tenant behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue — describing in-PR (hardening / latent security):
**Latent cross-tenant config collapse.** The worker-side `configChanged`
dispatch forwarded only `config` and dropped `companyId`, so a proactive
plugin kept a single worker-global config. #10092's startup replay
delivers every configured company's config sequentially with no `ORDER
BY`, so a plugin with configs for more than one distinct company would
apply a nondeterministic last-write-wins global config (one tenant's
credential applied to another's traffic).
- Builds on and must merge after #10092.
- Not exploitable today: the only proactive consumer (the chat gateway)
has single-tenant config rows, so last-write-wins is a no-op. This is a
hardening pre-condition before any multi-company proactive plugin ships.
## What Changed
- **Thread scope through:** `onConfigChanged(newConfig, context)` with a
new exported `PluginConfigChangeContext { companyId }`. Backward
compatible — the second arg is optional; existing single-arg
implementations are unaffected.
- **Fail-closed cross-tenant guard** (`worker-rpc-host.ts`): a
single-tenant plugin that receives `configChanged` for a second,
distinct company with a *different* config is rejected with the new
`PLUGIN_RPC_ERROR_CODES.CROSS_TENANT_CONFIG` instead of silently
overwriting the applied tenant's config. Idempotent replays of the
*same* config under a different scope row remain allowed.
- **Opt-in `multiCompanyConfig: true`** on the plugin definition for
plugins that genuinely serve multiple companies from one worker (keying
per-company state on `context.companyId`); the guard is bypassed for
those.
- **Deterministic `ORDER BY companyId`** on `registry.listConfigs`, so
the startup replay binds a single-tenant worker to a stable company
across restarts.
- **Loader visibility:** a `CROSS_TENANT_CONFIG` rejection is logged at
`warn` (was best-effort `debug`) so the misconfiguration is surfaced.
- **Regression test**
(`packages/plugins/sdk/tests/worker-rpc-host.test.ts`): two distinct
companies delivered via the startup-replay path fail closed and stay
bound to the first company; an idempotent same-config replay under a
different scope row is allowed; a `multiCompanyConfig` plugin receives
per-company config with the correct `context.companyId`.
## Verification
- SDK `tsc --noEmit`: clean.
- SDK vitest `worker-rpc-host.test.ts`: 7/7 pass (incl. 3 new). The
two-distinct-company case **fails against pre-fix code** and passes
after the fix.
- #10092 embedded-postgres `plugin-config-startup-delivery.test.ts`: 3/3
pass (unaffected by the new `ORDER BY`).
- Full server `tsc --noEmit` against this SDK: clean.
## Risks
- **Low functional risk.** The second `onConfigChanged` arg is optional
and existing implementations are unchanged. Today's single-tenant
gateway keeps working — idempotent same-config replays are explicitly
allowed, so the go-live is preserved.
- **Behavioral shift on misconfig:** a genuinely multi-company plugin
that has NOT opted into `multiCompanyConfig` now fails closed
(`CROSS_TENANT_CONFIG`) rather than silently collapsing to one tenant.
This is the intended safer default; opt in with `multiCompanyConfig:
true` to serve multiple companies from one worker.
- **Not in scope (residual).** Per-company workers/connections for a
genuinely multi-company gateway increase resource use and are tracked
separately (ties into the #10092 fan-out/timeout follow-up). This PR
fixes the class and fails closed; it does not build multi-tenant
connection management.
## Model Used
Claude — Anthropic `claude-opus-4-8` (Opus 4.8), extended thinking, with
tool use / code execution via Claude Code.
## 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)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id — branch predates this rule; not renaming an open PR
mid-review
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — no
doc surface; internal SDK/host behavior only
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: anicca <annica@Michaels-Mac-Studio.local>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
Dotta
|
a1835cfa5e |
[codex] Harden plugin runtime invocation scope (#6547)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through a company-scoped control plane. > - Plugins extend that control plane, but plugin workers still call back into host APIs. > - Those worker-to-host calls need the same company boundary guarantees as normal API routes. > - Plugin action handlers also need authenticated actor context from the host instead of trusting caller-supplied params. > - This pull request hardens plugin bridge/action scope and keeps plugin operation issues out of normal issue surfaces. > - The benefit is safer plugin execution with clearer authorization boundaries and better test coverage. ## What Changed - Added host-owned invocation context plumbing for nested plugin worker calls. - Added actor context to plugin `performAction` calls and test harness helpers. - Enforced company invocation scope on worker-to-host calls and filtered company lists to the active invocation scope. - Extended plugin action route tests for board and agent actor context, spoofed company params, and cross-company rejection. - Extended plugin worker manager coverage for invocation-scope propagation. - Filtered typed and legacy plugin operation issue origins from default issue/inbox lists. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/plugins/sdk/tests/host-client-factory.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-worker-manager.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` Note: embedded Postgres issue-service tests reported host-level Postgres init skip for 47 tests; the non-embedded targeted tests passed. ## Risks - Medium: plugin host authorization paths are sensitive, and external plugins may rely on previously loose company params. - Mitigation: the change only tightens calls when the host attached a company invocation scope and includes explicit tests for board, agent, and nested worker calls. > 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 GPT-5 Codex via `codex_local`, tool-enabled coding session; exact context window not exposed by 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 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 |
||
|
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
|
b947a7d76c |
[codex] Improve local plugin development workflow (#5821)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies. > - Plugins are the extension point for adding capabilities without expanding the core product surface. > - Local plugin development needed a tighter CLI-first loop so plugin authors can scaffold, run, install, inspect, and reload plugins without reaching into internal package paths. > - The server plugin install path also needed local-path handling that keeps plugin identity, dashboard routes, and development watchers coherent. > - This pull request adds the CLI scaffold/install workflow, fixes the server and SDK edge cases that blocked that loop, and updates the agent-facing plugin creation skill and docs. > - The benefit is that contributors can develop plugins from local folders with a documented, repeatable happy path. ## What Changed - Added `paperclipai plugin init` coverage and CLI wiring for local plugin scaffolding. - Improved local plugin install handling, plugin key route resolution, dashboard capability behavior, and dev watcher startup/reload behavior. - Fixed plugin SDK worker entrypoint validation for symlinked package layouts. - Added targeted tests for plugin init, server plugin authz/watcher behavior, SDK worker host validation, and the authoring smoke example. - Added a short local plugin development guide and refreshed the plugin authoring guide plus `paperclip-create-plugin` skill instructions. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/create-paperclip-plugin typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project paperclipai cli/src/__tests__/plugin-init.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/plugin-sdk packages/plugins/sdk/tests/worker-rpc-host.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/plugin-dev-watcher.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm --dir packages/plugins/examples/plugin-authoring-smoke-example test` - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the PR diff. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches plugin install routing, CLI command behavior, and the local development watcher. - Local path plugin installs execute trusted local code by design; the new docs call out that trust boundary. - No database migrations are included. > 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 local shell and git workflow, medium reasoning effort. Context window details 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 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 UI screenshots: not applicable; this PR changes CLI/server/plugin docs and tests, not board UI rendering. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |