mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-23 00:53:38 +02:00
3081b7480fb2c402bfe2cc53fa99e643a4441349
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
a1ab55a56d |
fix(agents): grant configuration access by default (#15283)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and permissions for a company. > - Agent setup can require one agent to configure another agent. > - New standard agents could create agents, but they had no direct configuration grant. > - Existing agents must keep their current permissions after an upgrade. > - The requested new-agent defaults include 13 more direct permissions for suggestions, skills, tools, audit, inbox, and task assignment. > - This pull request adds the 14-grant set at creation and approval activation, retains it through invitations, and keeps existing agents unchanged. > - The change keeps low trust and built-in agents on their narrower permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The agent creation and approval flows, and the agent configuration authorization path. **Current behavior** A new standard agent can create an agent. It cannot make protected changes to a peer agent unless an operator adds an `agents:configure` grant. **Proposed behavior** Add direct grants for `agents:configure`, `agents:suggest-changes`, `skills:create`, `skills:suggest-changes`, `tools:manage_connections`, `tools:manage_profiles`, `tools:view_audit`, `audit:view_agent_actions`, `tools:use`, `tools:manage_runtime`, `inbox:manage`, `tasks:assign`, `tasks:assign_scope`, and `tasks:manage_active_checkouts` to new standard agents. Scope `tasks:assign_scope` to the agent’s reporting subtree. Keep existing agents and their grants unchanged. **Reason and benefit** New standard agents can complete agent setup and the requested tool, skill, inbox, and task workflows under existing route, scope, and approval checks. **Breaking changes** Existing agents keep their current permissions. There is no permission migration. Related PR: #12212 adds scoped grant routes. This PR changes the default grant. ## What Changed - Add the 14 requested direct grants in agent creation and approval activation. Keep them when invitation approval replaces grants, preserving explicit scopes. Remove them when an agent is deleted. - Apply defaults only to new agents. Remove the existing-agent permission migration, its snapshot, and its journal entry. Preserve existing scoped grants. - Add permission, scope, invitation, and existing-agent regression tests. Document all default and excluded permissions. - Prevent agent keys from creating, changing, or restoring host-executed process or local adapter command settings, and from restoring workspace commands through rollback. ## Verification - Run `node_modules/.bin/vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-default-configure-grants.test.ts server/src/__tests__/invite-join-grants.test.ts packages/db/src/migration-snapshot-drift.test.ts`. All 15 tests pass. These cover new-agent defaults, unchanged existing grants, pending approval, invitation grants, and migration history. - Run `node_modules/.bin/tsc -p server/tsconfig.json --noEmit`. It passes. - Run `packages/db/node_modules/.bin/tsx packages/db/src/check-migration-numbering.ts` and `packages/db/node_modules/.bin/tsx packages/db/src/check-migration-safety.ts`. Both pass. - Confirm that this PR has no files under `packages/db/src/migrations/` in its final diff. - GitHub CI at `e8173b2c41` passes build, typecheck, server suites, browser shards, and canary verification. One unchanged OpenCode transport test reached its five-second timeout in the first Runner shard run. That test passes locally in 2.55 seconds. The shard passed on one retry. All 54 checks pass, with two expected skips. - Greptile gives this exact head 5/5. Security review passes. The PR has no unresolved review threads or merge conflicts. ## Risks - The 14 default permissions apply only to new standard agents. Existing permissions stay unchanged. Low trust and managed built-in agents are excluded. - New grants include connection, runtime, and active-checkout management. Existing company, responsible-user, scope, and approval checks remain in force. The default inbox grant carries a responsible-user-only scope so it cannot override another user's inbox settings. - Protected changes still need the responsible user's authority when that check applies. Company boundaries and approval gates still apply. - Agent-authenticated requests cannot configure process adapters or host command settings on local adapters. Known provider credential references remain allowed, as do narrow plain authentication overrides on new peers when the caller uses an AI connection pool. Arbitrary environment settings remain blocked. Board operators retain the host configuration paths. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This is a narrow fix to existing agent configuration behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 series. This runtime did not expose its exact hosted model ID or context window. This revision uses OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex with tool use, code execution, and tests. The runtime does not expose the exact hosted model ID or context window. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
30ff3d7c58 |
feat(routines): expose activity gate API (#9438)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Scheduled routines provide recurring control-plane work without manual intervention > - The new activity gate can suppress scheduled runs when no external work occurred > - The core scheduler and database support landed without a public create/update contract > - Agents, operators, and managed plugins need validated fields plus discoverable semantics to opt in safely > - This pull request exposes the activity gate through routine APIs, revisions, plugin contracts, tests, and skill documentation > - The benefit is backward-compatible control over idle scheduled work without losing activity-triggered follow-up ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #8534 ## What Changed - Added shared activity-gate policy and scope enums with create/PATCH validation. - Persisted activity-gate fields through routine creation, updates, revision snapshots, pipeline snapshots, and revision restores. - Defaulted legacy revision snapshots during restore and added regression coverage for pre-field snapshots. - Extended managed-plugin routine declarations, production reconciliation, and the SDK test harness to preserve non-default gate settings. - Added end-to-end API coverage for create/PATCH/list/detail round-trips, defaults, and invalid enum rejection. - Documented schedule-only semantics, activity windows, own-run/read-action exclusions, scopes, and an hourly quiet-night watcher example. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts -t 'activity gate|preserves declared activity gate settings|resolves routine agent and project refs'` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - GitHub CI: all final-head checks green; Storybook visual regression skipped by path rules. - Greptile: 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Low risk: defaults remain `always` and `company`, preserving existing routine behavior and old revision snapshots. - Managed plugin manifests can now declare the same validated gate settings as the public routine API; omitted values retain core defaults. - Revision snapshots now include the new fields so policy changes are not lost or treated as no-ops during restore. > For core feature work, checked `ROADMAP.md`: this extends the existing Scheduled Routines roadmap item and does not duplicate a separate planned capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with repository tool use and code execution; context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
ad961227f5 |
feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
746e287e33 |
feat(control-plane): add annotation and workspace controls (#8229)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - The control plane coordinates issues, workspaces, documents, routines, and board review flows across company-scoped data. > - The local source branch contained related schema, service, and UI changes for workspace issue scoping and document/routine annotations. > - These changes need to move together because db schema, shared types, server services, and UI consumers form one contract. > - This pull request extracts the migration-bearing control-plane work from the source branch onto `origin/master`. > - The benefit is a standalone branch with deterministic migration order and focused review for the highest-risk part of the split. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No GitHub issue exists for this branch split. Internal source task: [PAP-11234](/PAP/issues/PAP-11234). Problem/motivation: - Workspace operations need explicit issue scoping so readiness and blocker handling can be derived correctly. - Document annotations need reliable live updates, save failure surfacing, normalized activity keys, and better comment panel behavior. - Routine descriptions need the same annotation contract as issue documents so operators can discuss and edit routine text without special-case infrastructure. Proposed solution: - Add the workspace-operation `issueId` migration and readiness scoping. - Add routine document/annotation schema, shared types, services, routes, and UI editing support. - Keep the related migrations in one PR so the renumbered `0106` and `0107` migrations land in a deterministic order after current `master`. Alternatives considered: - Split migrations into separate PRs, rejected because that would create migration-numbering conflicts and make each branch less standalone. - Merge this with UI polish, rejected because this branch needs deeper server/db review. Roadmap alignment: - Checked `ROADMAP.md`; the roadmap mentions future recurring routine capabilities generally, but no duplicate implementation PR for these annotation/workspace changes was found. ## What Changed - Added `0106_workspace_operations_issue_id.sql` and `0107_routine_description_annotations.sql`, plus schema exports. - Scoped workspace readiness to blocker issues and attached workspace operation issue ids. - Scoped issue-thread interaction accept finalization to the source run. - Added routine document annotation contracts across db/shared/server/UI. - Improved document annotation live updates, activity-key normalization, save failure surfacing, and comment panel behavior. - Added issue workspace property controls and compact blocked-by/quick-control UI updates. - Added focused server and UI regression tests for the new contracts. ## Verification - `CI=true NODE_ENV=development pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --prefer-offline` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routine-document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts --run` — 10 files, 273 tests passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/db --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed, including db migration numbering check. ## Risks - Migration-bearing PR; merge this branch before any later PR that adds migrations with higher numbers. - Cross-layer contract risk across db/shared/server/ui, mitigated with targeted tests and affected-package typecheck. - Review should pay special attention to company scoping in new routine/document annotation paths. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` / CodexCoder, GPT-5-class coding model with tool use and shell execution. Exact runtime snapshot and context-window setting were not exposed by the Paperclip run context. ## 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 from the run context) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A per source task: do not add screenshots/images unless specifically part of the work) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A; no public docs changed) - [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
|
3c73ed26b5 |
Expand plugin host surface (#5205)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The plugin system is the extension boundary for optional product capabilities > - Rich plugins need more than a worker entrypoint: they need scoped database storage, local project folders, managed agents/routines, host navigation, and reusable UI components > - The LLM Wiki work exposed those missing host surfaces while keeping plugin code outside the core control plane > - This pull request expands the core plugin host, SDK, server APIs, and UI bridge so plugins can declare and use those surfaces > - The benefit is that future plugins can integrate with Paperclip through documented, validated contracts instead of bespoke server or UI imports ## What Changed - Added plugin-managed database namespaces and migration tracking, including Drizzle schema/migration files and SQL validation for namespace isolation. - Added server support for plugin local folders, managed agents, managed routines, scoped plugin APIs, and plugin operation visibility. - Expanded shared plugin manifest/types/validators and SDK host/testing/UI exports for richer plugin surfaces. - Added reusable UI pieces for file trees, managed routines, resizable sidebars, route sidebars, and plugin bridge initialization. - Updated plugin docs and example plugins to use the expanded host and SDK surface. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-agents.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts ui/src/api/plugins.test.ts ui/src/components/FileTree.test.tsx ui/src/components/ResizableSidebarPane.test.tsx ui/src/pages/PluginPage.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts` passed: 11 files, 67 tests. - Confirmed this PR changes 89 files and does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`. ## Risks - Medium: this expands plugin host contracts across db/shared/server/ui and includes a new core migration (`0076_useful_elektra.sql`). - The plugin database namespace validator is intentionally restrictive; plugin authors may need follow-up affordances for SQL patterns that remain blocked. - Merge this before the LLM Wiki plugin PR so the plugin can resolve the new SDK and host APIs. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub workflow. Context window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |