mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 08:22:20 +02:00
0a09e4d975e1e1cd7de65fbd1ca730b9cd9f97ea
11
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
030dd9d15c |
feat(adapter-utils): provider-delegable syncIn seam with ordered post-upload commands (#10340)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The adapter/runtime layer has to move files into sandboxes safely and efficiently > - The current sync-in path needs a provider-delegable seam so providers can use their native upload transport when available > - The upload contract also needs ordered post-upload commands so extracted content can be finalized fail-fast after transfer > - The fallback path still has to preserve current behavior when the provider does not expose native sync verbs > - This pull request adds the contract and runtime seam for provider-delegable sync-in, plus the single-stream collapse flag > - The benefit is fewer round trips, a cleaner provider-owned upload path, and a compatible fallback for existing runners ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. The underlying feature request is described below in the repository's feature-request format. ### Problem or motivation Paperclip needs a sync-in path that lets each provider choose the best available upload transport instead of forcing the harness to orchestrate uploads the same way every time. The runtime also needs a way to describe ordered post-upload commands so providers can finalize extracted content fail-fast after transfer. ### Proposed solution Extend the sync contract with ordered post-upload commands, forward that contract through the plugin and environment runtime layers, and make client syncIn always available. When a provider advertises native sync verbs, the client should delegate to that transport; otherwise it should fall back to the existing tarball/write/extract behavior and then run the post-upload commands in order. ### Alternatives considered Keeping upload orchestration entirely host-side would avoid a contract change, but it would block provider-specific transport optimizations and keep the harness responsible for a path the provider can do more efficiently. A separate post-upload API would add another surface without improving the existing sync flow. ### Roadmap alignment This work aligns with the broader runtime and adapter roadmap because it improves provider integration without changing the external product model. It is an additive contract change that preserves backward compatibility for providers that do not expose native sync verbs. ### Additional context The fallback path still needs to preserve existing observable behavior, including command ordering, cwd confinement, and fail-fast execution. The single-stream progress flag is part of the same transport improvement so smaller writes can collapse to a single round trip when the runner supports it. ## What Changed - Added ordered `postUploadCommands` support to the sync operation contract and SDK mirror. - Plumbed the sync-in contract through the plugin and environment runtime layers. - Implemented a runtime client `syncIn` path that delegates to native provider transport when available, otherwise uses the generic tarball/write/extract fallback. - Preserved fail-fast execution of ordered post-upload commands in the fallback path. - Flipped the sandbox runner's single-stream stdin progress flag to collapse small `writeFile` operations to a single round trip. - Added and updated tests for contract forwarding, fallback behavior, cwd rejection, fail-fast behavior, and single-stream collapse. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk exec vitest run protocol.postupload.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk exec vitest run environment-sync-negotiation.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec vitest run command-managed-runtime.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run environment-execution-target.test.ts` - Local typecheck and targeted suite runs reported in the handoff passed before PR creation. ## Risks - The new fallback path could diverge from the previous inline upload behavior if the tarball/extract contract changes. - Provider-native sync handling may expose provider-specific edge cases if a runner advertises sync verbs but does not fully honor the contract. - The single-stream flag changes transport behavior for small uploads, so regressions would likely show up as round-trip or upload failures. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-5, tool-using coding agent). ## 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 and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
30ff3d7c58 |
feat(routines): expose activity gate API (#9438)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Scheduled routines provide recurring control-plane work without manual intervention > - The new activity gate can suppress scheduled runs when no external work occurred > - The core scheduler and database support landed without a public create/update contract > - Agents, operators, and managed plugins need validated fields plus discoverable semantics to opt in safely > - This pull request exposes the activity gate through routine APIs, revisions, plugin contracts, tests, and skill documentation > - The benefit is backward-compatible control over idle scheduled work without losing activity-triggered follow-up ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #8534 ## What Changed - Added shared activity-gate policy and scope enums with create/PATCH validation. - Persisted activity-gate fields through routine creation, updates, revision snapshots, pipeline snapshots, and revision restores. - Defaulted legacy revision snapshots during restore and added regression coverage for pre-field snapshots. - Extended managed-plugin routine declarations, production reconciliation, and the SDK test harness to preserve non-default gate settings. - Added end-to-end API coverage for create/PATCH/list/detail round-trips, defaults, and invalid enum rejection. - Documented schedule-only semantics, activity windows, own-run/read-action exclusions, scopes, and an hourly quiet-night watcher example. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts -t 'activity gate|preserves declared activity gate settings|resolves routine agent and project refs'` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - GitHub CI: all final-head checks green; Storybook visual regression skipped by path rules. - Greptile: 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Low risk: defaults remain `always` and `company`, preserving existing routine behavior and old revision snapshots. - Managed plugin manifests can now declare the same validated gate settings as the public routine API; omitted values retain core defaults. - Revision snapshots now include the new fields so policy changes are not lost or treated as no-ops during restore. > For core feature work, checked `ROADMAP.md`: this extends the existing Scheduled Routines roadmap item and does not duplicate a separate planned capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with repository tool use and code execution; 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 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> |
||
|
|
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>
|
||
|
Michael NguyenandPaperclip
|
5a00040c4c |
feat(plugin-sdk): interactions/approvals respond + attachment read capabilities for the chat gateway (#10066)
Adds the remaining 5 plugin capabilities + 7 worker→host RPC methods (interactions read/respond, approvals read/respond, attachment read) needed by the Slack chat gateway plugin (v0.5.0) to pass manifest capability validation and load. - Security review: PASS (LOOA-642) after the viewer-role privilege-escalation blocker (LOOA-648) was fixed on this branch (requireActiveHumanMember now rejects viewer on impersonation write-paths, matching assertCompanyAccess). - CI: Build, Typecheck, all server suites (3/3 + serialized 4/4), workspaces, e2e shard 2/2, and all security scanners (Snyk/Socket/Superagent/Greptile/security-review) green. - One e2e flake (signoff-policy 'non-participant cannot advance stage') is unrelated: it exercises execution-policy stage advancement (routes/issues.ts, untouched by this PR) and failed on a heartbeat_run_events FK race + 409 checkout conflict. Unblocks LOOA-629 (Slack gateway go-live) and the interview-ask feature. 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> |
||
|
|
b247bf7150 |
feat(runtime): opt-in sandbox file-sync lifecycle hooks (API + provider docs) (#10013)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open-source AI-agent management platform; agents run tasks inside sandboxed environments (Daytona, Kubernetes, E2B, etc.) > - The control-plane ↔ sandbox file-transfer path flows through the `environmentExecute` seam in `protocol.ts` — the only verb available to plugins — which forces a base64-over-exec chunked loop for every file move: workspace files, assets, Codex home sync > - This transport is correct and safe, but it bypasses provider-native bulk/streaming APIs (Daytona `uploadFiles`, K8s `FastUploadInterceptor` / volume mounts), leaving significant throughput on the table for large workspaces > - The right fix is an opt-in seam extension: providers with faster native transfer declare two optional verbs; providers that do not opt in stay on the existing fallback with zero code or behavior change required > - This PR adds the first layer of that extension — two optional verbs (`environmentSyncIn` / `environmentSyncOut`) in the plugin SDK, the runtime plumbing to prefer the native path for the two clean destroy-then-replace cases, and a doc for the contract > - The core correctness invariant is byte-identical fallback: if no provider opts in, execution is exactly what ships today; `assertSyncOperationsConfined` enforces host-side path confinement for providers that do opt in > - No provider advertises the verbs yet → zero production behavior change; future PRs wire up Daytona and K8s providers against this contract ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Description follows the `feature_request` issue template: **Subsystem affected:** packages/plugins — plugin system; packages/adapter-utils — adapter runtime; server/ — EnvironmentRuntimeService **Problem or motivation:** Sandbox file transfers currently always use a base64-over-exec chunked loop regardless of what the underlying provider supports. For workspaces larger than a few MB this becomes the dominant wall-clock cost of every sandbox run, and it bypasses bulk/stream APIs that providers like Daytona already expose natively. **Proposed solution:** Add two optional, opt-in plugin hooks — `onEnvironmentSyncIn` / `onEnvironmentSyncOut` — to the plugin SDK. When a provider defines both hooks and both are advertised via the existing `supportedMethods` negotiation, the runtime prefers the native path for the two clean destroy-then-replace transfer cases; all other cases fall back to the existing byte-identical base64 transport. **Alternatives considered:** An unconditional verb would require every provider to implement or stub the verb. The opt-in / `METHOD_NOT_IMPLEMENTED` pattern (already used by `environmentExecute`) preserves backward compatibility with zero provider changes required. **Roadmap alignment:** Consistent with the ✅ "Cloud / Sandbox agents" and ✅ "Plugin system" milestones; extends the plugin seam rather than adding control-plane-level logic. **Additional context:** Searched open pull requests and issues for duplicate sandbox file-sync / native-transfer work; none found. ## What Changed - **`packages/plugins/sdk`** - `protocol.ts`: two new optional `HostToWorkerMethods` — `environmentSyncIn` / `environmentSyncOut` — plus generic `SyncOperation`, `SyncFileMapping`, and `SyncOutcome` types - `define-plugin.ts`: optional `onEnvironmentSyncIn` / `onEnvironmentSyncOut` fields on `PluginDefinition`; worker advertises each verb only when its hook is defined (else `METHOD_NOT_IMPLEMENTED`, mirroring `environmentExecute`) - `worker-rpc-host.ts`: route new verbs to plugin hooks - `index.ts`: re-export new public types - **`packages/adapter-utils`** - `command-managed-runtime.ts`: expose optional `syncIn` / `syncOut` on `CommandManagedRuntimeRunner` (available only when both verbs are advertised); add `assertSyncOperationsConfined` host-side path-confinement guard - `sandbox-managed-runtime.ts`: `SandboxManagedRuntimeClient` gains optional `syncIn` / `syncOut`; orchestrator prefers native path for default-provision asset inbound and workspace-download-into-fresh-dir outbound; all other paths keep the existing base64 fallback - `sandbox-file-sync.test.ts` (new): 234-line characterization suite — native-opt-in branch, fallback branch, `assertSyncOperationsConfined` escape-path rejection, `followSymlinks` → tar `-h` - `command-managed-runtime.test.ts`: negotiation + native-sync + confinement tests - **`server/src/services/environment-runtime.ts`**: `EnvironmentRuntimeService` delegates to `syncIn` / `syncOut`, gated on advertised support - **`server/src/services/environment-execution-target.ts`**: minor typing fix alongside the new verbs - **`doc/plugins/SANDBOX_FILE_SYNC_HOOKS.md`** (new): documents the full contract — opt-in / no-op guarantee, operation ordering, provider-may-tar, atomicity, `followSymlinks`, secret modes (0600, no window), path confinement, `operationId` opacity, resource bounds, shell-quoting ## Verification ```bash # SDK suite pnpm --filter packages/plugins/sdk test # Adapter-utils suite (includes new sandbox-file-sync characterization tests) pnpm --filter packages/adapter-utils test # Expected: 255 pass / 4 skip # Type-check across affected packages pnpm --filter packages/plugins/sdk typecheck pnpm --filter packages/adapter-utils typecheck # Server changed-file spot check: cd server && npx tsc --noEmit --skipLibCheck 2>&1 | grep -E "environment-(runtime|execution-target)" | head -20 ``` Key behavioral invariant to spot-check: with no provider opting in (the current state), run any sandbox task and confirm file-transfer behavior is byte-for-byte identical to what the pre-PR code produces. The characterization tests assert this at the unit level. ## Risks - **Zero production risk today**: no provider advertises `environmentSyncIn` / `environmentSyncOut`, so the new code paths are unreachable in production; all real traffic stays on the existing base64 fallback - **Path confinement**: `assertSyncOperationsConfined` rejects any `targetPath` that escapes the declared root — this is the primary security boundary for future providers. The test suite covers escape-path rejection - **Atomicity**: the contract delegates atomicity to providers; the doc explicitly calls out that directory-level ops are not guaranteed atomic - **Secret transport**: credential assets (e.g., Codex `auth.json`, directory mappings) continue to use the existing tar path — they do not go through the new verbs in any current provider > 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 Provider: Anthropic Model: `claude-sonnet-4-6` (Claude Sonnet 4.6) Context window: 200 K tokens Capabilities: extended tool use, multi-file code generation, agentic reasoning via the Paperclip agent framework ## 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: Harold Kim <harold@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1de0a3bb1e |
feat(mcp) [split 2/8]: add governed access contracts (#9557)
## 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 2/8 and focuses on database schema and shared governance contracts > - 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 governed access model needs additive persistence and synchronized shared types before server enforcement can compile. - Proposed solution: Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing. - 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/01-demo-servers`. - 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 migrations/validators; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing. - 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` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db test` — passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared test` — passed ## Risks - Migration or contract mistakes could affect every upper layer; all migrations are additive/idempotent and compile consumers are included in this boundary. - 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4d5322c821 |
[codex] Add checkbox confirmation issue interactions (#7649)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions, and approval-style handoffs. > - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options. > - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the UI. > - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract, server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render and submit structured selections. > - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip interactions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox confirmation issue-thread UI component work. - GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation / issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found. - Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup work, so it is not linked as a related issue. ## What Changed - Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for `request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions. - Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response handling. - Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can create the new interaction shape consistently. - Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target states, and accept/decline flows. - Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the Paperclip skill/API reference. ## Verification - Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into `public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts ``` Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed. - CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green. - Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check shows all Greptile threads resolved. ## Risks - Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK helpers, and docs. - No database migrations are included. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile policy. - UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states. > 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 repository file access, shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata is not exposed inside 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 - [ ] 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] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
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> |