4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
3 people	02c7175e72	feat(agents): hired agents inherit provider credential references (#13268) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent adapters need provider credentials to start work > - A hired agent can lack the credential reference that its hiring agent already uses > - The child agent then cannot authenticate, even when the company has a valid credential > - This pull request copies matching credential references from the hiring agent to the hired agent > - The benefit is that hired agents can start with the provider access that the hiring agent already uses ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This change relates to [PR #9920](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9920), which covers credential inheritance for other agent creation paths. This pull request covers hiring-specific inheritance and fixed Claude OAuth binding checks. ### What existing behavior does this improve? The agent hire route builds the child adapter configuration from the hire request only. ### Current behavior A hired agent does not receive matching provider credential references from its hiring agent. The child agent cannot run when the request omits the credential. ### Proposed behavior The hire route inherits matching credential references from the hiring agent. The request keeps priority. A Claude hire that supplies any Claude credential inherits none. ### Reason and benefit The child agent can use the provider access that the hiring agent already uses. The change copies references only and never copies raw token values. ### Breaking changes None. The change affects only hires that need an inherited reference. ## What Changed - Copy matching credential references from the hiring agent into the hired agent adapter configuration. - Preserve pinned versions, `required`, and `allowMissingOverride` fields on each copied reference. - Keep hire-request credentials ahead of inherited credentials. - Reject inherited fixed Claude OAuth bindings unless the parent agent passes company, adapter, and exact-binding checks inside the same transaction. - Add route and service tests for inheritance, precedence, and binding validation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server src/__tests__/agent-hire-auth-inheritance-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/agents-claude-oauth-binding.test.ts` — 60 passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server src/__tests__/agent-hire-idempotency-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts src/__tests__/secrets-service-user-secret-owner-scoped.test.ts` — 28 passed. - `tsc --noEmit` in `server/` — the error count matches the merge base, with no error in either changed source file. - `git diff --check` — clean. ## Risks Low risk. The route copies references, not raw tokens. The request keeps precedence. Company, adapter, and exact-binding checks protect the inherited Claude OAuth path. ## Model Used Codex, OpenAI GPT-5, with code execution and review support. The implementation commit predates this pull request handoff. ## 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: nickyleach <331803+nickyleach@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-14 09:26:27 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	e0b64529b3	feat(auth): normalize agent login in the sandbox onto one session table and a capability contract (#11730) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Sandbox agents need a safe login path for each supported adapter > - Codex device login and Claude setup-token login used separate session stores and route logic > - Separate stores made session lookup, expiry, and login capability checks harder to keep consistent > - This pull request unifies both flows on one session table and one capability contract > - The benefit is one company-scoped login model with public session identifiers and shared lifecycle rules ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) **Problem or motivation** Codex and Claude sandbox login used separate session stores and different route paths. This split increased the risk of inconsistent company scoping, session lookup, and cleanup. **Proposed solution** Use `adapter_auth_sessions` for both login flows. Use public session identifiers for API access. Select login behavior from projected adapter capability data. Share the route spine, lease arguments, runner lifecycle, and reaper rules. **Alternatives considered** Keep two session tables and add matching fixes to both routes. This keeps duplicate logic and does not provide one capability contract, so this pull request uses shared infrastructure. **Roadmap alignment** This change supports the shipped Cloud / Sandbox agents milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. ## What Changed - Unify Codex device login and Claude setup-token login on `adapter_auth_sessions`. - Return and look up sessions with company-scoped public session identifiers. - Enforce one active session for each company, owner, and adapter. - Share the login route spine, sandbox lease arguments, runner lifecycle, and missing-auth check. - Add a standalone setup-token reaper with adapter-specific row selection. - Add optional login capability projection for adapters and drive route and UI selection from that data. - Rename the provider flag to `supportsLoginPty` and validate its deprecated alias. - Remove the old Claude setup-token session table and add the required migrations. ## Verification - Server typecheck passed with `tsc`. - Database typecheck passed. - UI typecheck passed with `tsc -b`. - Codex login service and route suites passed. - Setup-token session, route, and reaper suites passed. - Adapter session schema, plugin validator, capability projection, UI render, and Daytona suites passed. - GitHub Actions must confirm the complete CI gate after pull request creation. ## Risks - The migrations remove short-lived in-flight login rows during deployment. A login that spans the migration can continue until its provider lease expires. - The Codex credential store remains company-scoped. A cross-owner credential race remains a documented, board-accepted risk. - API clients that use internal session row identifiers no longer work. The API accepts only public session identifiers. ## Model Used Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model ID not exposed in this handoff, large context window, reasoning, and repository tool use. The implementing engineer produced the code with AI assistance. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-19 11:51:31 -07:00
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>	2026-08-18 09:44:24 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	c1c46f1e4e	feat: Claude login on the new-agent page before agent creation (#11347) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Claude local adapter supports subscription login through a sandbox > - The new-agent page must show login before the user creates an agent > - Test results must not expose raw sandbox diagnostics or secret values > - This pull request adds the login UI to both Test lanes and closes the diagnostic boundary > - The branch also adds durable cleanup recovery for failed sandbox teardown > - Reusable sandboxes must retain both their recorded teardown configuration and a valid lifecycle path until destruction succeeds > - The benefit is a usable login flow with fixed public checks, redacted server logs, and recoverable sandbox cleanup ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related public work: [#9488](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9488) adds first-class recognition for `CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN` in headless and remote runs. Related public issue: [#2681](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/2681) requests Claude Code subscription support. This pull request adds the login transport and new-agent UI flow that those changes do not provide. **Subsystem affected:** Claude local adapter, server login probes, sandbox provider setup, cleanup recovery, and the new-agent UI. **Problem or motivation:** The Test lanes did not show the sandbox login panel in all supported cases. Test results also exposed raw probe diagnostics, and JSON escapes could end secret redaction early. **Proposed solution:** Surface the login capability through the bundled provider manifest. Prepare the same probe runtime in the ACP lane. Send diagnostics only to redacted server logs. Keep Test checks on fixed public messages. Normalize login URL hints to allowlisted HTTPS Claude and Anthropic hosts. Consume JSON escapes during redaction. Preserve failed sandbox cleanup state across retries and restarts, and prevent deletion from severing the lifecycle context of a live reusable sandbox. **Alternatives considered:** Keep raw diagnostics in Test checks or trust login URL text from the sandbox. Both choices increase information exposure. Keep separate probe behavior in the ACP lane. That choice would leave the two Test lanes inconsistent. ## What Changed - Surface the sandbox login panel on both Test lanes. - Reconcile the bundled Daytona plugin manifest so `supportsSetupTokenLogin` reaches the UI capability gate. - Prepare the ACP Test lane with the same probe runtime as the CLI Test lane. - Add the `claude_acp_login_probe_unavailable` warning when the ACP probe cannot run. - Send raw sandbox diagnostics only to redacted server logs. - Keep Test checks on fixed public messages in the ACP, managed-config, and CLI paths. - Normalize login URL hints to allowlisted HTTPS Claude and Anthropic hosts. - Redact JSON and escaped-JSON secret values, including escaped quotes and backslashes. - Preserve orphan cleanup records across provider failures, restarts, and unavailable plugins. - Atomically block environment deletion while a live reusable sandbox lease still depends on it. - Verify pending cleanup destroys plugin sandboxes with the provider configuration recorded on the lease, even after the current environment configuration changes. ## Verification - Head under review: `506b7fa2d83c36bfa5fd722ee9d95b0c7431c241`. - Focused environment route/service/runtime coverage passes: 196 tests across 3 files. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - The full Vitest run completed with 4,754 passing and 28 failing tests. All 23 source-test failures reproduce unchanged on parent head `58cfe61a33191ce03d965d65085d26064b4888ba`; the other 5 are duplicate executions from stale `server/dist` output. The failures are unrelated macOS path/listener and scheduler-fixture failures, so there is no new bad commit for bisect to localize. - All required CI checks pass for the current head, including build, typecheck/release registry, all server and workspace shards, serialized server suites, canary, and e2e. - A fresh Greptile review for `506b7fa2d83c36bfa5fd722ee9d95b0c7431c241` reports 5/5, “safe to merge,” with no blocking failure remaining. ## Risks - A probe or redaction change could hide useful server diagnostics. - An allowlist change could reject a valid Claude login URL. - Cleanup recovery changes could affect provider teardown ordering. - An environment with a live reusable sandbox can no longer be deleted until the owning issue or execution workspace completes teardown. - The implementation keeps public Test messages fixed and sends detail to redacted server logs. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex — exact model ID: GPT-5; tool use and code execution enabled; extended reasoning enabled. The implementation author used AI-assisted development. ## 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 documented the result - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation or confirmed no separate documentation change is needed - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-17 13:42:51 -07:00