mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 01:27:09 +01:00
2bdda5dcf2bd5bd332de4fc43cffdee1ffe3dbdf
6
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
5f0da562db |
fix(server): wake chat lifecycle milestones from committed changes (#17606)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connected chats show safe notices when a run starts, waits, finishes, or fails. > - A recurring scan projected these notices even when no eligible work existed. > - Eligibility depends on committed run state, conversation lineage, and current authority. > - Existing database rows can reconstruct that work after restart. > - This PR wakes a scoped worker from those writes and removes lifecycle polling. > - Native progress events keep their separate existing owner until the next migration. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The chat maintenance timer repeatedly scanned run lifecycle state. Empty and settled instances still queried the database. A run-status event alone cannot replace the scan: prompt receipts, continuation receipts, identity changes, and restored authority can make a run eligible later. **What did you expect?** Committed changes wake projection. Startup reconstructs eligible work. A completed pass stops until another relevant change arrives. Failed work retains recovery without scanning settled history forever. **Steps to reproduce** Configure an automatic chat endpoint. Finish its work, or leave it unused. Observe recurring lifecycle projection queries from the chat maintenance callback. Stacked on #17592. Related foundation: #15625. This PR owns lifecycle milestones only. ## What Changed - Preserve upstream coalesced Cloud membership writes together with locked membership restoration and its committed chat notification. - Signal milestone eligibility from the real Slack account-link transaction. - Register the lifecycle worker with the existing delivery coordinator. Remove lifecycle projection from the periodic chat callback. Keep native progress in a separately named lane and preserve the explicit combined API. - Reconstruct company/issue scopes from the existing selector. Drain bounded batches with company fairness. Retry failures, retain writes through drain/resume, and disarm settled work. - Signal from supported run, presentation, interaction, receipt, lineage, conversation, recovery, and authority writers. Preserve their transaction ownership, including nested savepoints and uncertain settlement. No new table is added. - Preserve provider authorization, authored-final suppression, responsible-user continuity, deduplication, the 24-hour selection window, and raw-output restrictions. Keep provider interpretation in its owner. - Preserve PostgreSQL timestamp precision in lifecycle pagination. Rejected submillisecond candidates must not repeat the same page and starve later notices. - Document producer coverage and alternate-writer dispositions in `doc/plans/2026-10-25-chat-run-milestone-sleep-audit.md`. ## Verification Published head: `1d056f68c5b1005933b9e12de8745bf1c4cbeeca`, targeting master after #17592 merged at `7d75ae0569e41786640cf09647ae8849411d2f22`. A normal merge integrates the actual landed parent. The entire 77-path milestone patch is binary-identical to the locally verified preparation across that ancestry reconciliation; both unrelated master paths are preserved. The four earlier producer/test integration conflicts retain scoped milestone and voice notices, current onboarding completion admission, and expanded identity query/read-scope coverage. - **330 distinct selected cases pass on the verified unchanged patch:** 305 across 14 complete suites (all five milestone worker suites, run identity, board claim, Cloud provisioning, auth session routes, Cloud actor authentication, stale-lock recovery, GitHub credentials, project Git authorization, and app admission wiring), plus 25 selected real chat producer cases. The remaining 1,590 chat integration cases were skipped, not passed. - The real producer cases cover saved milestone discovery, GitHub and Slack identity changes, account-link rollback/reconfirmation, ordinary ingress reactivation, post-close action/delivery receipt settlement, all ten authority-restoration paths including Cloud synchronization, and changed native review metadata. - Worker coverage verifies outer commit, rollback, uncertain-write recovery, restart, bounded batching/fairness, timestamp precision, retries, drain/resume, and settled SQL quiet. Authorization and existing publication deduplication remain with their owning services. - Server production typechecking, build, and module-boundary checks pass. The tests above were executed separately. Production typechecking excludes `src/__tests__` and does not replace those runs. Each database owner uses its own newly created and app-migrated PostgreSQL fixture. - [Current-parent acceptance and preserved failure ledger](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/1d056f68c5b1005933b9e12de8745bf1c4cbeeca/doc/plans/2026-10-25-chat-run-milestone-sleep-audit.md#current-parent-integration-and-acceptance-october-28) records commands, counts, producer scope, conflict dispositions, and limits. Earlier combined-stack counts and failures keep their original revision scope; local acceptance does not erase old CI failures. - No new migration, queue table, dependency, workflow, or shared scheduler contract is introduced. Parent migration 0397, bounded consent recovery, voice cleanup/retention repairs, and runner checkpoint restoration remain present. - **Exact-head Greptile is 5/5 and all 55 current checks are clean.** No Ponytail review is present, which is an explicitly authorized nonblocker; no failing review is waived. Older reviews and parent checks are not current passes. Actual failing Ponytail findings must be fixed; an absent/stopped/paused turn without a verdict is an authorized nonblocker. Active unfinished Ponytail uses its original request/start timer, with a 25-minute monitor cutoff respecting the user's 30-minute maximum. - No complete local repository matrix, live provider tenant, external alarm, physical host/database suspension, or fleet savings claim is made. Native progress remains a separate following slice. ## Risks - A future eligibility writer must notify the existing projection boundary. Independent SQL writers or another active server process are outside this process-local signal contract. - Authority and lineage remain sensitive. The worker uses the existing selectors and publication policy; it does not grant execution or disclosure authority. - Native progress and other publication maintenance still have recurring work. This PR removes one reason, not the entire chat maintenance timer. - Worker quiet does not prove database suspension, host sleep, or external alarm coverage. Cloud sleep blockers remain unchanged. - Merge eligibility requires passing current-head CI and Greptile 5/5 after this actual-master reconciliation. Subsequent stack slices retain their own gates. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed. Used repository inspection, reasoning, shell execution, PostgreSQL tests, browser E2Es and GitHub tools. ## 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 available in this session) - [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 the documented focused 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
|
623f1dc289 |
fix(server): schedule secret-proposal expiry from committed changes (#17446)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents can propose secrets and bindings for approval. > - Pending proposals already contain their expiry and encrypted value. > - The server scans for expired proposals on every maintenance tick, even when none exist. > - Committed proposal changes and saved expiry times provide the required triggers. > - This PR uses those triggers and preserves scrubbing, approval checks, and recovery. > - Empty and completed proposal history no longer causes recurring expiry queries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17443. This is the second PR in the sleep migration stack and targets its branch. **What problem does this solve?** The periodic proposal scan contacts PostgreSQL when no proposal needs maintenance. That obstructs idle database behavior across tenant instances. **What is the proposed solution?** Use transaction-aware notifications for creation and resolution. Reconstruct the earliest pending expiry at startup. Run cleanup at that deadline, or retry while reconciliation remains unfinished. **Why is this useful?** It removes an idle scan while retaining security checks and physical ciphertext cleanup. No queue table or migration is required. ## What Changed - Added intent notifications before secret/binding creation, approval, terminal transitions, and linked interaction resolution. The existing outer transaction owns settlement. - Kept expiry selection, ciphertext scrubbing, dependent rejection, and authorization in the secret-proposal service. - Registered a startup and deadline worker in place of the aggregate maintenance sweep. Empty/terminal states disarm; overdue batches and failures retain retries. - Reused shared scoped deadline dispatch for secret expiry. The service owns company-filtered SQL and expiry policy. Custom-image expiry continues to use `registerDeadlineWork`. - Added real PostgreSQL producer, outer-transaction, concurrent-write, expiry, restart, interaction resolution, and drain/resume tests. Updated startup wiring fixtures and documented the supported writer/lifecycle contract. ## Verification - Landing reconciliation at `c10eb1bcf752b058713e05d3345e5cf38dd3fa72`: 160 tests pass across the complete secret-proposal, scoped deadline, company batch, coordinator, startup, custom-image service and custom-image worker suites; no cases skipped in the accepted runs. Server typecheck passes. This integrates master after #17443 landed; fresh remote CI and Ponytail review are required before merge. Current head: `5bbe17ad9ebc4573b08ed1a9323644ef9608ca09`. This remains a single-duty PR stacked on #17443. - Integrated pinned master `8548173fc9efdc0fa07644fb92dcc0b6851a95e5` with normal merges. Every branch passed generated-schema checks and its target-branch migration-order gate. Existing SQL is unchanged; the 25 stack migrations follow master’s new migration. - Duty-specific producer coverage, lifecycle tests, and earlier failure records: [2026-10-08-instance-sleep-and-scheduler-inventory.md](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/5bbe17ad9ebc4573b08ed1a9323644ef9608ca09/doc/plans/2026-10-08-instance-sleep-and-scheduler-inventory.md), [2026-10-24-recurring-server-sleep-stack.md](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/5bbe17ad9ebc4573b08ed1a9323644ef9608ca09/doc/plans/2026-10-24-recurring-server-sleep-stack.md). - Combined tip `51e6cbe67979b55b340ea9f0f434c5b5c682ccd6`: **355 startup/cancellation/recovery/dispatch/preservation tests**, **75 connection-management tests**, and production server typechecking pass. These combined checks do not mean every intermediate PR independently ran the full repository suite. - Real master-to-stack database upgrade passes: **379 unchanged prior migration receipts plus 25 new migrations**, with the gateway responsibility fixture preserved. - Owning-branch checks: 84 runner installation/settlement cases plus runner typechecking and generated TypeScript/Rust profile agreement; 253 GitHub review workflow cases. Stop-attribution and held-worker readiness regressions failed before their fixes. - Failure accounting: the initial combined run passed 349 cases and failed six idle assertions in a reused preservation database containing old cancelled runs. Repeating the combined command with a fresh preservation database passed. Earlier invalid project selection, merge import/type errors, and the interrupted full local suite are not counted as passing checks. - **Latest-head CI and review remain required.** Prior CI findings include GitHub idle observation, route teardown, attention cleanup, touch-picker E2E, workspace health, and voice-cleanup timing; local passes do not erase those failures. No full local repository-suite, deployed sleep, fleet cost, or live Copilot qualification claim is made. ## Risks - Notifications cover supported writers sharing the database signal owner. Independent SQL writers and other process roots require a separate ingress contract; startup recovery alone is not live replica support. - The shared coordinator and scoped worker also serve later stack duties. Their defaults remain intact; existing voice, chat, native, and startup consumers are included in integrated verification. - Startup now checks overdue proposals immediately. During drain, physical cleanup waits; approval still rejects expired proposals synchronously. - Each due company pass remains bounded to 100 rows. Failed scopes back off from 30 seconds to five minutes; healthy overdue work keeps draining. Self-generated write hints coalesce and do not erase a failed sweep's backoff. - Heartbeat-disabled behavior and Cloud sleep-safety gates remain unchanged. This does not establish deployed suspension or external wake coverage. Tool review and gateway token cleanup remain separate slices. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context window were not exposed. ## 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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
2dd9811e8b |
Own agent hiring and termination in a lifecycle module (#15631)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Agent creation, approval, pause, and termination change whether an agent can work. > - These changes currently use separate service and database paths. > - Some agents need setup after their record exists and before their harness can run. > - This PR adds one module that owns those state changes and their transactions. > - The module records progress and retries incomplete work after a server restart. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** A hire can become active before its execution environment is ready. Direct agent state writes also bypass one common lifecycle boundary. Termination does not have a durable step for resource cleanup. **Proposed solution** Use agent lifecycle commands for hiring, approval, pause, resume, and termination. Keep proposed hires pending until approval. Prepare each approved hire, test its saved harness configuration, and then permit work. Wait for required plugin work before completing a step. **Alternatives considered** A general database commit hook would expose transaction details to callers. A timer alone would delay each new hire. This module owns each command transaction and starts its worker after commit. A periodic scan recovers work after a process stops. **Roadmap alignment** This change adds the lifecycle boundary for the existing agent and plugin systems. It does not add a user interface or a provider implementation. It replaces the lifecycle delivery approach in #15391. Related proposals include #11475 and #13099; this change does not add their external executor protocols. ## What Changed - Add durable approval, preparation, verification, pause, resume, stop, and cleanup states. - Keep agent creation, lifecycle state, configuration writes, and agent record deletion behind `modules/agent-lifecycle`. Keep validation, credential rules, reads, onboarding, invitations, general approvals, and company data deletion in their services. - Commit a hire before the remaining onboarding or invitation work. Serialize requests with the existing dedicated database connection helper. Reuse the hire after a failed attempt. - Keep accepted work in the run queue during setup. Require execution and cleanup evidence before completing pause or termination. - Retain the original credential owner when approving migrated hires. - Start lifecycle work after each command commits. Use database leases and revision checks for retries and late results. - Add a generic required plugin method and capability. Store the required plugin IDs for each agent. Track host and plugin completion separately. - Keep harness verification and credential rules in services. Supply their results to lifecycle through explicit ports. Reject failed logins and incomplete probes. - Remove reverse imports from lifecycle adapters into services. Share record queries and validation below both layers. - Use one hire decision path for agent IDs and approval IDs. Resolve the approval and agent change in one transaction. Expose policy reconciliation on the command object. - Save configuration and verification invalidation through one module operation. Ordinary commands own their transaction. Restrict the shared transaction integration to its listed callers. Reject identity, company, accounting, timestamp, and unknown fields. - Require completed termination before deleting agent records. The company deletion service calls the module through a separate deletion interface. - Save an approved secret before applying its agent binding. A failed binding leaves the secret approved. A retry reuses it. - Remove old permission and metadata export files. Move hire configuration rules out of lifecycle persistence. - Report failed worker steps and scans with operation context and known error codes. Omit provider messages, stacks, and configuration values. Document ordinary application use and extension rules. - Recover expired native owners only after execution stops. Retry cleanup of failed retained leases. Wait for setup in the live smoke script. - Keep manual, budget, and company pause reasons separate. Guard execution status writes with the ready state. - Add a migration, boundary checks, regression tests, and a lifecycle guide. Keep the current UI. - Limit periodic policy checks to 100 eligible agents per minute. Continue from the last agent ID. Exclude pending hires and agents in termination or a final state. Keep explicit company and budget updates immediate. ## Verification - Latest head `ccc3c86b0` aligns the shared status update schema with the PATCH route. All 15 shared tests, 104 server route/OpenAPI tests, 2 CLI tests, and shared/server/CLI TypeScript checks pass. The Greptile comment is fixed. CI is running; no new Apex review was requested for this small fix. - Rebase `75708ac94` rebases onto master at `2eb5187e4`. The backup test uses the shared 90-second timeout from master; the older timeout commit was removed. The affected backup test passes. - Agent budget edits now pass the target agent ID through enforcement. All 50 affected tests, server TypeScript, and 11 boundary tests pass. Both configuration update paths have regression coverage. CI is running on the latest head. No new Apex review was requested for these small fixes. - Rebase `9b568666a` preserves the run-control extraction and delivery-work startup changes from master. All 559 affected tests, server TypeScript, and 11 boundary tests pass. CI and Apex review are running on the final head. - The policy scan fix passes 56 lifecycle and diagnostic tests, 24 policy and caller tests, and 11 boundary tests. A regression test checks the page limit, interval, excluded states, and cursor wraparound. - Rebase `fd4698750` passes all 611 tests in eight affected lifecycle, route, and heartbeat suites. Server TypeScript and all 11 module boundary tests pass. The company deletion rollback and concurrent hire tests are included. - Follow-up `00aac7646` fixes the failed decision deletion test and the public update schema. All 126 affected server tests, 8 shared tests, 2 CLI tests, and 11 boundary tests pass. Shared, server, CLI, and UI TypeScript checks pass. - Server TypeScript passes: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`. - All 11 boundary tests pass: `node --test scripts/check-module-boundaries.test.mjs`. The repository boundary scan also passes. - All 68 lifecycle, failure diagnostic, and harness verification tests pass. Tests reject forbidden fields through the root command, combined transition command, and restricted transaction integration. They also check invalid fields returned by configuration preparation. - Failure tests cover host work, plugin work, claims, renewals, deferrals, and scans. Log tests check known error codes and exclusion of private error contents. - All 355 tests in 10 existing caller suites pass. These tests cover secret approval, pairing, pending hires, credentials, company import, built-in agents, managed agents, instructions, and skills. - The branch is rebased onto `origin/master` at `2eb5187e4`. The queue guards and cancellation lock fix use the extracted heartbeat queue. Agent cancellation uses the extracted run-control file. The source diff scan found no secrets or private URLs. - Earlier checks cover approval retries, rollback, late verification results, policy holds, deletion rollback, concurrent company deletion, and queue admission during setup. - Before the rebase, CI passed on `00aac7646` and Greptile Apex rated it 5/5 with no open comments. CI and a new Apex review are pending for the rebased commit. The branch has no merge conflicts. - The full local build and native Dot suite were not run. The host has no Cargo. No live provider test was run. ## Risks - Background policy recovery takes more than one minute when more than 100 agents are eligible. Explicit company and budget updates still reconcile immediately. - The restricted configuration integration keeps an agent reference and its dependent records in one transaction. It cannot change a budget or invoke a lifecycle transition. A periodic scan starts pending setup after that transaction commits. - Secret approval and binding use separate transactions. A failed binding can leave an approved secret with no agent binding. - New approved hires remain unavailable until setup and verification complete. Existing clients see `paused` during these steps. This PR does not change the UI. - Migration `0320_daily_onslaught.sql` maps existing statuses and pause reasons. It does not create external resources or claim that an existing harness passed verification. - Use a coordinated server update for this migration. Older server versions can write legacy status without the new lifecycle checks. - A failed onboarding or invitation request can leave a committed hire. A retry reuses that hire and completes the remaining records. - Deletion requires completed termination. Company deletion can require another request while cleanup is pending. - Required plugins must make repeated calls safe and reject older revisions. A disabled or removed required plugin blocks completion until it is restored. - A new hire can run a second harness test after the existing UI test. Some adapters can charge for this test. - No live provider test was run. Provider implementation and resource backfill remain separate work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code tools, and local test execution. ## 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 described the issue in this PR with the feature request field labels - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [x] Targeted local tests pass - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the new commit - [x] Greptile Apex is 5/5 with no open comments on the new commit - [x] I will address review comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
1ef3b08714 |
feat(ui): integrate agent personas across the app (#13171)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A stable agent persona is useful only when the same identity appears across the app. > - Lists, task messages, selectors, and activity feeds need inexpensive static avatars. > - Onboarding and agent headers need a larger character with expressions and pointer tracking. > - This pull request connects the persona foundation to those existing views and preserves onboarding draft assignments. > - Full-page stories and Linux checks make the placements and performance contract reviewable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Agents need a stable visual identity in lists, tasks, onboarding, and configuration. External tools also need an image URL for that identity. **Proposed solution** Assign each agent a permanent palette from a fixed ClipLab character library. Store the assignment on the agent. Render and cache preset PNG URLs on demand. Use static images in dense views and one animated character in larger placements. **Alternatives considered** A generated image bundle requires a separate asset build. A live renderer in every avatar adds unnecessary work in large lists. Arbitrary uploaded images do not provide the requested shared character system. **Roadmap alignment** This improves agent identity across existing control-plane views. It preserves agent permissions, company boundaries, and status labels. ROADMAP.md has no separate ClipLab persona milestone. Related approaches: #2422 adds configurable image URLs and DiceBear generation; #5578 adds optional uploaded avatars. This work uses a fixed, versioned character library and preset URLs. ## What Changed - Replace agent icons with static persona images across lists, the sidebar, org charts, tasks, comments, selectors, activity, and dashboard views. - Put one animated character in the agent header. Let it follow the pointer across the page, with reduced-motion and touch fallbacks. - Add larger padded characters to agent creation. Keep the palette stable across draft refreshes and connection retries, then reveal it after success. - Pass appearance through shared projections rather than fetching each agent separately. - Add real full-page Storybook examples for the agent list, overview, task, dashboard, new-agent dialog, and connection page. - Add Linux screenshot, clipping, density, and 500-avatar performance checks. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and token gates pass on the rebased tree. Persona lifecycle tests pass. - The rebased feature passes 38 Linux screenshot/performance checks, including both display densities, corner pointer positions, and the no-WebGL/no-live-download contract for 500 avatars. - The final Linux persona suite passes all 38 visual, lifecycle, density, and full-page checks using the standard Storybook configuration and real on-demand avatar endpoint. - Final local focused verification: 45 avatar/native-recovery tests pass; UI identity/routine tests, typecheck/build, token gates, and Storybook build pass. - Current-head CI passes: full workspace/server tests, all serialized server groups, typecheck/release checks, build, canary validation, and end-to-end shards. The build passed after retrying a native-runner concurrency-test failure; its three targeted cases also pass locally. - Manual inspection covered stable identities in the app, header placement, full-page mouse tracking, onboarding size, and task/dashboard placements. ### Screenshots Linux captures use synthetic Storybook fixtures. Full-page captures use reduced motion. The live character, mouse tracking, and disposal are checked separately. <details> <summary>Agent overview with the character in its header</summary> <img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/8c68f42b268ada22b67d79d0fe1bb0a2f84ec25c/screenshots/full-page-agent-overview.png" width="900" alt="Agent overview with the character in its header" /> </details> <details> <summary>Task messages and assignee identity</summary> <img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/8c68f42b268ada22b67d79d0fe1bb0a2f84ec25c/screenshots/full-page-task.png" width="900" alt="Task messages and assignee identity" /> </details> <details> <summary>Larger onboarding character with room for expressions</summary> <img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/8c68f42b268ada22b67d79d0fe1bb0a2f84ec25c/screenshots/full-page-meet-your-next-agent.png" width="900" alt="Larger onboarding character with room for expressions" /> </details> <details> <summary>Dashboard agent activity</summary> <img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/8c68f42b268ada22b67d79d0fe1bb0a2f84ec25c/screenshots/full-page-company-dashboard.png" width="900" alt="Dashboard agent activity" /> </details> ## Risks - This PR depends on #13170, the persona foundation. Merge the foundation first, then retarget this PR to master. - Many placements change from icons to character silhouettes. Human avatars and authoritative agent status labels retain their existing behavior. - Only one character can render live per view. Reduced motion, hidden/offscreen content, touch input, and renderer failures use the defined fallbacks. - The full-page stories use fixture data. They do not contact a real company or complete real provider sign-in. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact model identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. Used code editing, shell execution, browser inspection, and Linux visual testing. ## 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> Co-authored-by: Tonio <tonework@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6b8e42168e |
Add governed secret alias confirmation cards (#11486)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need scoped secret bindings to use external services safely. > - Agents could not request an existing secret under a new config name without an internal secret identifier. > - Existing binding proposals were only visible in Settings and did not create an issue-thread approval path. > - A confirmation card could record acceptance without proving that the binding was created. > - This pull request extends the existing secret proposal system with safe source references and governed issue-thread confirmation cards. > - The benefit is a one-click flow that creates the binding or shows a clear failure without exposing secret material. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prerequisite: #11482. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server REST APIs, shared interaction contracts, database proposal schema, and issue-thread UI. **Problem or motivation** An agent can need an existing bound secret under a second config name. The agent cannot safely discover the internal secret identifier. The existing proposal is also easy for the operator to miss because it only appears in Settings. A generic confirmation can record acceptance without executing the binding. **Proposed solution** Let an agent create a binding proposal from one of its existing config paths. Mint a server-owned, human-only confirmation card on the checked-out issue. Recheck the operator's target-agent permission under the proposal row lock. Execute the existing proposal transaction after card acceptance. Store an `executed` or `failed` result on the card. Render the complete lifecycle in the issue thread and attention resolver. **Alternatives considered** A new alias subsystem would duplicate proposal quotas, expiry, authorization, and binding synchronization. A text-only issue comment would not provide a governed action or an execution result. An agent-supplied card payload would permit metadata smuggling. This change uses the existing proposal transaction and a server-owned payload instead. **Roadmap alignment** This change extends the completed "Secrets Manager with per-agent access" roadmap item. It preserves scoped bindings and audited resolution. The required GitHub search found no other open duplicate issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Added safe source-config-path binding proposals and preserved user-secret ownership checks. - Added a proposal-to-interaction link and an idempotent database migration. - Minted human-only `request_confirmation` cards with server-owned `secretProposal` metadata. - Rejected agent-supplied governed metadata and agent addressees. - Rechecked `agent_config:update` authority under the proposal lock before execution. - Recorded `executed` or `failed` results and posted a failure comment when no binding was created. - Settled failed accepted proposals atomically and mirrored rejection, withdrawal, and expiry in both directions. - Emitted `secret.binding.created` for new agent binding writes. - Added a dedicated issue-thread card for pending, executed, failed, rejected, withdrawn, and expired states. - Showed only the source label, target agent, config path, skeptical justification, expiry, and safe failure code. - Replaced resolved attention-query entries immediately with the stitched server result. - Added focused server, database, UI, and state-transition tests. - Added Storybook fixtures for every review state and documented the API and agent behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionInteractionResolver.test.ts` — 58 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build-storybook` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts` — 142 passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts --silent` — 1 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` — server 4,175 passed, UI 4,109 passed; the CLI AWS-doctor case passes 8/8 with runtime-injected static AWS credential variables unset. - `pnpm build` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - Migration `0221` adds one nullable foreign key and one index. It uses idempotent guards. - The accept route performs a governed write after it records card acceptance. A failed write is visible and settles the proposal as rejected. - Concurrent proposal and card resolution must use proposal-before-interaction lock order. A race test covers direct approval against card rejection. - The new audit event increases activity rows for newly added agent bindings. It does not include secret values or fingerprints. - The card includes only safe proposal metadata. It does not include secret value, fingerprint, version, or internal secret identifiers. - The UI uses the stitched resolution result. Focused tests cover immediate cache replacement and every terminal state. > This work extends an existing completed roadmap capability. The GitHub duplicate search returned no other open related work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose its context-window size. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution, database integration tests, UI rendering, and GitHub tools were 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] 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> |
||
|
|
e43f187cad |
feat(secrets): add human-approved secret proposals (#9934)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Agents can encounter credentials during work. > - Directly creating live secrets or bindings would bypass human governance. > - Proposal records must remain inert and separate from live secret resolution until an authorized human approves them. > - Approval must reuse the existing secret-create and protected agent-config write paths. > - This pull request adds the propose, review, approve, and reject lifecycle. > - The benefit is that agents can safely hand credentials into Paperclip without exposing plaintext or gaining authority to activate them. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-on to #9921, which established run-bound agent secret access. **Problem / motivation:** Agents can receive credentials during work. There is no governed way for them to propose a credential or binding without exposing plaintext in work artifacts or immediately creating live access. **Proposed solution:** Store agent-authored proposals outside live secret tables. Encrypt each proposed value and register exact-value redaction when Paperclip receives it. Require an authorized human to approve or reject each proposal. Approval executes through the normal write paths as the human approver. Binding proposals can target only the proposer or its downward reporting chain under the restrictive V1 policy. **Alternatives considered:** We rejected live secrets with a `proposed` status. That design would put untrusted rows in resolver, list, and sync paths. It would also allow uniqueness squatting. We rejected direct agent binding writes because a binding is an agent-config write and must keep the existing human permission gate. **Roadmap alignment:** This change extends the run-bound agent secret-access foundation in #9921 with a governed proposal workflow. ## Security Verdict Q0 SecEng verdict: **PASS-with-required-changes**. The review accepted the separate proposal-table design and required the implementation to: - fail closed unless both encryption and exact-value run redaction registration succeed; - scrub ciphertext idempotently on reject, withdraw, and expiry, with audit-visible state; - treat agent justification as hostile input and foreground action, target, provenance, and approver permissions; - snapshot and re-check the target agent plus reports-to chain at approval to prevent org-chart laundering; - make cascade approval atomic and fail closed if either secret creation or binding authorization fails; - deny low-trust, `skill_test`, `task_bridge`, and non-run-bound sources consistently; and - execute approval through the normal human secret/config write paths, including protected-change gates. Those requirements are implemented and covered by focused service, route, and UI tests. Residual V1 risk remains the accepted 14-day encrypted retention window. Proposal-time redaction also cannot clean a value that leaked before the propose call. ## What Changed - Added `company_secret_proposals`, migration `0207`, shared proposal contracts, and a state-machine service for create, approve, reject, withdraw, cascade, expiry, and ciphertext scrubbing. - Added run-bound agent proposal routes and board review routes. The routes derive provenance from authentication and enforce source restrictions, company isolation, chain-of-command checks, approval-as-approver, wake-on-resolution, and dual audit trails. - Added durable per-run exact-value redaction registration so proposal values remain redacted on later read surfaces. - Added the Secrets **Proposals** tab and agent configuration **Proposed access** rows. The UI shows fingerprint and length only. It also frames agent justification as untrusted input, runs permission preflight, supports approve and reject actions, and confirms cascades. - Updated OpenAPI, agent skill guidance, API reference documentation, and focused server and UI regression coverage. - Rebased the branch onto current `master` and renumbered the proposal migration after `0206`. ## QA Acceptance Results Q5 QA verdict: **PASS — 9/9 acceptance criteria met**, with one Minor non-blocking follow-up. - **AC1:** proposed values never echo, never appear in live lists/resolvers, and expose only fingerprint + length to board reviewers. - **AC2:** restrictive `self_and_reports` matrix passes: self/downward allowed; upward/lateral denied. - **AC3:** secret approval uses the normal create path, honors rename overrides, records proposer/approver provenance, and scrubs ciphertext. - **AC4:** approved bindings materialize and resolve through the target agent's runtime list/fetch routes. - **AC5:** pending-secret bindings require cascade; cascade succeeds atomically and permission failures leave nothing applied. - **AC6:** reject, withdraw, dependent rejection, and expiry paths scrub ciphertext and preserve reasons/audit state. - **AC7:** token/source and approver denial matrix passes through live checks plus focused route tests. - **AC8:** proposal lifecycle events and reused `secret.created`/config-write events form the required dual audit trail; origin-issue notification and wake are queued. - **AC9:** both review surfaces render and execute correctly; UI approval materializes the binding. QA also confirmed zero plaintext occurrences for all exercised proposal values in server logs. The single finding is that the company-level `bindingTargetPolicy` toggle is not wired yet. V1 is hardcoded to the restrictive `self_and_reports` policy. The matrix is correct and the follow-up is tracked separately, so QA classified it as non-blocking. ## Verification - Focused server proposal and redaction suite: 83 tests pass. - Focused proposal review UI suite: 54 tests pass. - Embedded-Postgres migration reapply test: 1 test passes with the documented 30-second timeout. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passes, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes with all gates clean. - Q5 exercised the complete propose, review, approve, bind, and runtime-resolve flow over real HTTP, JWT, and database paths. It verified 9/9 acceptance criteria. ## Risks - Proposal ciphertext is retained encrypted for up to 14 days while pending. Terminal-state and expiry scrub paths reduce but do not remove server-compromise risk during that window. - The V1 target policy is restrictive but not yet company-configurable. A separate follow-up owns that change. - A new migration can require another renumber if another migration lands before maintainers merge this pull request. > 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. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed. The agent used reasoning, repository editing, terminal execution, Paperclip API, and GitHub CLI capabilities. Q3 UI work also records Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in its commit trailers. ## 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 or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [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> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
