PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	4039d4f06b	fix(auth): allow scoped low-trust work and owner-chat instruction edits (#14870 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Low-trust agents must work within their assigned scope. > - Task creation currently rejects these agents before checking assignment permission or scope. > - Persistent instruction saves also reject direct requests from authorized chat owners. > - This PR checks the requested action and its recorded authority instead of denying all such work. > - Agents can organize permitted work and follow their owner's instruction-edit requests while outside work stays restricted. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Low-trust agents cannot create self-assigned tasks or subtasks, even within their allowed scope. An authorized user also cannot ask an agent in their own Agent Chat to update its managed `AGENTS.md`. Agent-folder collection can hide the permission rejection behind a generic save failure. Expected behavior Allow task creation when assignment permissions and project or root-task scope permit it. Allow instruction self-edits during authenticated owner-chat execution, subject to the user's current edit permission. Outside tasks, subtasks, connector messages, and peer agents do not inherit that instruction authority. Explain the actual denial when a save fails. Steps to reproduce 1. Configure an active agent with `low_trust_review` and a project or root-task boundary. 2. Ask it to create an in-scope task assigned to itself, or a subtask of its own task. 3. As a user with permission to configure that agent, ask it in your Agent Chat to update its managed `AGENTS.md`. 4. Observe blanket permission denials rather than action-specific checks. Paperclip version or commit Rebased onto master at `8ec4b84e1`. This is a core authorization change, independent of adapter choice. Deployment mode Authenticated server. Regression coverage uses the server services, HTTP routes, native tool authority, and embedded PostgreSQL. Related work: #14775 adds human-directed task execution. #13599 concerns instruction-path configuration; this PR leaves that configuration restricted. #11988 proposes separate active-review instruction protection. #10693 reports unclear authorization denials on a different API surface. ## What Changed - Apply task-assignment checks to both HTTP creation routes and native task creation, including unassigned work. Preserve low-trust policy and source attribution on the created task and its initial plan. - Allow self-assigned decomposition within the permitted project or root-task tree. Resolve workspace-derived project scope before authorization, and reauthorize existing tasks before duplicate detection returns them. Keep cross-project and peer-assignment checks. - Derive instruction self-edit authority from the accepted run identity and authenticated owner-message wake. Recheck current permissions at save time. Bind retries to the same request and chat session. - Reject inherited instruction authority from outside tasks, subtasks, plugins, connectors, stale sessions, cancelled runs, and peer edits. - Surface permission errors in instruction and agent-folder save receipts. Tell chat agents to explain the rejected action and the specific restriction. - Update the low-trust policy and implementation documentation. ## Verification - All 297 tests in 11 focused server suites pass after the rebase. These cover owner-chat saves, private copies, warm agent directories, reset and retry boundaries, permission revocation, task creation routes, and native tool authority. - After review fixes, all 126 tests in the four affected authorization/chat suites pass. Workspace scope regressions and 146 existing creation/ownership/workspace-route tests also pass. - The final duplicate-task and CI fixes pass all 39 tests across chat-project tools, duplicate creation, environment-selection guards, and assignee-invokability routes. The duplicate-task test reproduced an unauthorized response before the fix and verifies denial plus permitted reuse afterward. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passes after rebasing; `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` also passes after the review fixes. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passes. - Final head `7e73270b86748792649e4ae6fbc6879f73b42b73`: all 54 checks passed, with two expected skips and no pending or failed checks. This includes builds, typechecking, the full test matrix, end-to-end tests, runner verification, the canary dry run, and security scans. - Greptile is 5/5 on that exact head, with no unresolved review threads. This change has not been deployed to staging. ## Risks This changes authorization behavior. The instruction exception must not become an inherited task permission. The check uses server-owned execution records, requires the agent's own chat and instructions, and keeps normal protected-change and responsible-user checks. Saves fail closed when current provenance or permission is missing. Owner chat grants a turn-scoped capability; the server does not classify the message intent or require approval of the exact new file bytes. Prompt injection within an authorized owner-chat turn remains a model-level risk. This is the requested owner-chat trust boundary, without a new per-edit confirmation flow. No database migration or broad trust-preset change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code editing, shell tools, and test execution. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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>	2026-10-01 15:42:40 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ab15aff390	feat: add experimental persistent agent chat (#13284 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution history. > - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task properties. > - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned project tasks. > - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one squash merge. > - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance and shared UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid runner tests. Problem or motivation Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing controls. Proposed solution Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own disabled-by-default experimental setting. Roadmap alignment This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat). Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack. Consolidates the reviewed runtime [#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend [#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI [#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes the complete feature. ## What Changed - Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility, immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state. - Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause, and fence old provider context and delayed writes. - Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment, task lists, and rollups. - Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat subtasks. - Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and durable project-created cards. - Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag. - Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots. - Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message, and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls are stopped even if teardown fails. - Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with idempotent replay for development databases. ## Verification - Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build, typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile 5/5 and no unresolved findings. - Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests, all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88 focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server typecheck also passes. Current head `1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry, canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)). Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped fixtures do not count as passing coverage. - The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32 screenshots: [report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat). It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head. - Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns are blocked. ## Risks - Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and ordinary task behavior. - Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is idempotent and preserves existing development chat history. - This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from Conference Room. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test subjects in the linked paid campaign. ## 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>	2026-09-12 08:56:04 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

DottaandPaperclip

4039d4f06b

fix(auth): allow scoped low-trust work and owner-chat instruction edits (#14870 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Low-trust agents must work within their assigned scope.
> - Task creation currently rejects these agents before checking
assignment permission or scope.
> - Persistent instruction saves also reject direct requests from
authorized chat owners.
> - This PR checks the requested action and its recorded authority
instead of denying all such work.
> - Agents can organize permitted work and follow their owner's
instruction-edit requests while outside work stays restricted.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

Low-trust agents cannot create self-assigned tasks or subtasks, even
within their allowed scope. An authorized user also cannot ask an agent
in their own Agent Chat to update its managed `AGENTS.md`. Agent-folder
collection can hide the permission rejection behind a generic save
failure.

**Expected behavior**

Allow task creation when assignment permissions and project or root-task
scope permit it. Allow instruction self-edits during authenticated
owner-chat execution, subject to the user's current edit permission.
Outside tasks, subtasks, connector messages, and peer agents do not
inherit that instruction authority. Explain the actual denial when a
save fails.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Configure an active agent with `low_trust_review` and a project or
root-task boundary.
2. Ask it to create an in-scope task assigned to itself, or a subtask of
its own task.
3. As a user with permission to configure that agent, ask it in your
Agent Chat to update its managed `AGENTS.md`.
4. Observe blanket permission denials rather than action-specific
checks.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Rebased onto master at `8ec4b84e1`. This is a core authorization change,
independent of adapter choice.

**Deployment mode**

Authenticated server. Regression coverage uses the server services, HTTP
routes, native tool authority, and embedded PostgreSQL.

Related work: #14775 adds human-directed task execution. #13599 concerns
instruction-path configuration; this PR leaves that configuration
restricted. #11988 proposes separate active-review instruction
protection. #10693 reports unclear authorization denials on a different
API surface.

## What Changed

- Apply task-assignment checks to both HTTP creation routes and native
task creation, including unassigned work. Preserve low-trust policy and
source attribution on the created task and its initial plan.
- Allow self-assigned decomposition within the permitted project or
root-task tree. Resolve workspace-derived project scope before
authorization, and reauthorize existing tasks before duplicate detection
returns them. Keep cross-project and peer-assignment checks.
- Derive instruction self-edit authority from the accepted run identity
and authenticated owner-message wake. Recheck current permissions at
save time. Bind retries to the same request and chat session.
- Reject inherited instruction authority from outside tasks, subtasks,
plugins, connectors, stale sessions, cancelled runs, and peer edits.
- Surface permission errors in instruction and agent-folder save
receipts. Tell chat agents to explain the rejected action and the
specific restriction.
- Update the low-trust policy and implementation documentation.

## Verification

- All 297 tests in 11 focused server suites pass after the rebase. These
cover owner-chat saves, private copies, warm agent directories, reset
and retry boundaries, permission revocation, task creation routes, and
native tool authority.
- After review fixes, all 126 tests in the four affected
authorization/chat suites pass. Workspace scope regressions and 146
existing creation/ownership/workspace-route tests also pass.
- The final duplicate-task and CI fixes pass all 39 tests across
chat-project tools, duplicate creation, environment-selection guards,
and assignee-invokability routes. The duplicate-task test reproduced an
unauthorized response before the fix and verifies denial plus permitted
reuse afterward.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passes after rebasing;
`pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` also passes after
the review fixes.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passes.
- Final head `7e73270b86748792649e4ae6fbc6879f73b42b73`: all 54 checks
passed, with two expected skips and no pending or failed checks. This
includes builds, typechecking, the full test matrix, end-to-end tests,
runner verification, the canary dry run, and security scans.
- Greptile is 5/5 on that exact head, with no unresolved review threads.
This change has not been deployed to staging.

## Risks

This changes authorization behavior. The instruction exception must not
become an inherited task permission. The check uses server-owned
execution records, requires the agent's own chat and instructions, and
keeps normal protected-change and responsible-user checks. Saves fail
closed when current provenance or permission is missing. Owner chat
grants a turn-scoped capability; the server does not classify the
message intent or require approval of the exact new file bytes. Prompt
injection within an authorized owner-chat turn remains a model-level
risk. This is the requested owner-chat trust boundary, without a new
per-edit confirmation flow. No database migration or broad trust-preset
change is required.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code editing, shell tools,
and test execution. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size
are not exposed in this session.

## 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>

2026-10-01 15:42:40 -05:00

DottaandPaperclip

ab15aff390

feat: add experimental persistent agent chat (#13284 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution
history.
> - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task
properties.
> - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned
project tasks.
> - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one
squash merge.
> - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance
and shared UI.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Subsystem affected**

Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid
runner tests.

**Problem or motivation**

Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat
store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing
controls.

**Proposed solution**

Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task
composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned
project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own
disabled-by-default experimental setting.

**Roadmap alignment**

This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO
Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat).
Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The
maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack.

Consolidates the reviewed runtime
[#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend
[#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI
[#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers
with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received
Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes
the complete feature.

## What Changed

- Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility,
immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state.
- Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause,
and fence old provider context and delayed writes.
- Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment,
task lists, and rollups.
- Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary
assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat
subtasks.
- Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including
multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and
durable project-created cards.
- Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent
navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag.
- Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four
Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots.
- Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message,
and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on
ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls
are stopped even if teardown fails.
- Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with
idempotent replay for development databases.

## Verification

- Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build,
typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile
5/5 and no unresolved findings.
- Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and
production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests,
all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88
focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session
regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three
lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server
typecheck also passes. Current head
`1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no
unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates
passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry,
canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards
([CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)).
Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped
fixtures do not count as passing coverage.
- The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32
screenshots:
[report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat).
It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior
evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head.
- Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an
agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project
task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained
history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns
are blocked.

## Risks

- Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests
cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and
ordinary task behavior.
- Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is
idempotent and preserves existing development chat history.
- This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's
request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from
Conference Room.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code
execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window
size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test
subjects in the linked paid campaign.

## 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>

2026-09-12 08:56:04 -05:00