11 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	09ad9adce2	feat(server): adopt running remote agents through durable controller checkpoints (#17439) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip must keep admitted remote work alive while its main server is replaced. > - Runner owns recovery mechanics and exposes opaque checkpoints through #17097. > - The server owns company scope, encryption, Stop, tool authority and execution ownership. > - A successor must prove current ownership before it adopts the original execution. > - Checkpoint bursts must also leave capacity for normal requests and lease renewal. > - This PR persists and adopts that authority through the existing runtime boundaries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Remote agents retain the original execution during a bounded main-server outage. **Current behavior** A server restart can lose the controller's local state and connection. An unsafe replacement could repeat a turn or an uncertain mutation. Checkpoint writes in the request pool can also delay ordinary requests during an aligned burst. **Proposed behavior** Restore encrypted control records from Postgres and adopt the original runner under a fenced lease. Recover known tool receipts through current tool authority. Give control checkpoints a shared pool capped at two connections per database owner. Depends on #17097. Successors are #17455 and #17456. Qualification and presentation remain separate review slices. ## What Changed - Add company/run-bound encrypted checkpoint records and migration 0394. Keep the SQL idempotent after renumbering against current master. - Recover startup and expired ownership through native runtime and heartbeat. Preserve the sandbox lease, admitted runner artifact, harness configuration, native session and active turn. - Keep Stop, finalization, preparation ownership and stale-writer fencing transactional. Preserve graceful detach and natural crash takeover. - Recover committed tool receipts through the existing authority. Reauthorize reads and hold uncertain mutations. - Bound startup retention with the existing coordinator and preserve zero idle scans. - Share at most two checkpoint connections per database client. Keep application and liveness capacity separate. Close the checkpoint pool during shutdown; late writes cannot reopen it. - Count SQL across both application and checkpoint clients. Prove request/liveness progress, command recovery and failure after pool shutdown with real Postgres. ## Verification Project creation recovery now uses the existing project activity receipt owner. It retains authenticated input normalization, fingerprint checks and current run authority after the receipt lock. An absent receipt returns no result before mutation. The new lost-HTTP-response and no-effect regression uses real API routes and Postgres. The seven transport cases pass locally. This Mac skips all 20 database cases. On current source `5de803c2cd`, Linux [job 122593415890](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40620576702/job/122593415890) executes all 20 project-tool cases successfully (9.480 seconds), including the committed-project lost-response regression. Its shard passes 1,627 cases with three unrelated skips. Server typecheck passes. The transport regression initially has two failures; a subsequent incorrect expectation about schema defaults was corrected before the final pass. Ordinary execution adds no checkpoint writes or recurring work. Current candidate `5de803c2cd` includes the project-creation receipt recovery fix and master `2cd747d1b6`. Migration 0394 retains the prior idempotent checkpoint DDL. Every master SQL file and journal entry is preserved. Snapshots 0390–0394, migration checks and server typecheck pass. The ordinary warm-turn regression fails on its second turn before `a219ab51ad`. After correction, three completed warm turns select the correct prior checkpoint and preserve the original session. All 288 provider-wiring cases pass. The control plane, external persistence callback, identity rotation and filesystem are real; the backend and database-load seam are scripted. The 13 warm admission/configuration variants also pass after final master integration. This does not qualify an underlying harness. At current source `5de803c2cd`, Linux [job 122593415907](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40620576702/job/122593415907) passes all 940 native-session-executor cases (61.431 seconds), including the warm external-checkpoint behavior; the shard passes 2,358 cases with one skip. Current [Runner job 122593415475](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40620576702/job/122593415475) passes the native recovery lane: 115 passes and five container-only skips, including the encrypted restore guard, fresh preparation (63.189 seconds), blocked claim lock (1.226 seconds) and recovery beyond 101 blocked owners (3.897 seconds). The first lane passes 2,215 cases with one skip. The SQL cost test reports zero idle and streaming SQL for both output volumes; this is component evidence, not a production capacity claim. At prior candidate `1ff7bb44f4`, Linux job 122549307215 passes all 938 native-executor cases, including the three-turn external-checkpoint regression. Job 122549306469 passes the native recovery lane with 115 passes and five container-only skips, including the encrypted-restore session guard, fresh preparation (63.664 seconds), claim-lock contention (3.961 seconds), and 101-owner recovery (3.824 seconds). This Mac skips the real-Postgres suite. The earlier full local executor attempt has 921 passes and 16 failures during embedded-Postgres initialization before assertions. The original fixture collisions and their corrections remain recorded. At earlier candidate `8fbe62b41d`, server shard job 122535673841 has 3,876 passes, one failure and one skip in an unchanged expiry-worker retry/drain timing test. The same server/database tree on qualification source `b64cac6951` passes all 20 expiry cases and all 3,877 shard cases. The single diagnostic retry, job 122541891915, passes all 20 expiry cases and all 3,877 shard cases (one skip). No assertion was weakened. The original failure remains recorded and its exact timing race is not proven. All Actions checks and legacy status passed on `8fbe62b41d`, with completed Greptile 5/5 and no open feedback. The next candidate `1ff7bb44f4` also passed all Actions checks and Greptile 5/5. Its Paperclip Review remained queued before the new master conflict required integration. The new candidate needs fresh exact-head CI and reviews; old checks do not qualify it. Migration generation is checkpoint-only, all master SQL and journal entries remain unchanged, and migration checks, server typecheck and all 13 warm-owner variants pass after integration. The first migration check was blocked by TSX sandbox IPC; its permitted repeat passes. The first warm-test command used an incorrect path and ran no tests; the corrected command supplies the 13-case receipt. All 16 database pool-lifetime/options/teardown cases pass after granting loopback permission; the first batch had two EPERM failures and 14 passes. Earlier semantic-tool/HTTP recovery, adoption, encryption-batch, zero-streaming-write and idle-SQL receipts remain source-attributed in the [qualification record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/2ff66f57da0da35bac1c19a2366ea4b84d87a986/doc/plans/2026-10-22-hot-upgrade-qualification.md). That record retains earlier assertion, setup and cleanup failures and their corrections. No failed gate is waived. The historical 300-session component campaign passes four after phases: steady read p99 is 107–108 ms at 500 reads/s and 100 writes/s; aligned-burst read p99 is 103–105 ms after the bounded pool, versus 584–689 ms before. This comparison isolates the persistence corrections. It does not measure the final stack's hosted active-agent capacity. The hosted zero-agent API pair leaves SQL and CPU essentially unchanged, but both arms fail absolute latency gates and candidate peak cgroup memory fails its gate. The active-agent/viewer matrix, different-artifact upgrade and rollback remain open. Run `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL=<owned-disposable-postgres> pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/native-runtime/native-runner-restart-recovery.integration.test.ts`. Previous head `f2db8a6568` had one failed workspace setup gate: [job 122555672441](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40608984238/job/122555672441) passes all 4,169 UI tests and 285 CLI cases (one skip), but the company import/export suite reaches its 30-second health deadline during doctor startup. Its output does not reach the server-start step. The CLI, server, database, shared, adapter and plugin trees are identical on qualification source `a866619d7b`, whose [job 122555886663](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40609057937/job/122555886663) passes that fixture and all 286 CLI cases. The one diagnostic retry, [job 122561057225](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40608984238/job/122561057225), passes the formerly failing fixture and all 286 CLI cases. All Actions checks and legacy status on `f2db8a6568` pass. Its exact-head Greptile completed at 5/5 with no open feedback. The current integrated head requires fresh checks and a completed Paperclip Review before merge. The original failure remains recorded; its exact timing cause is unproven. A repeated failure requires investigation and repair rather than another retry. All current-head CI, legacy status, exact-head completed Greptile 5/5, resolved feedback and ordinary GitHub merge eligibility remain required before merge. The latest integration preserves master’s published Copilot v70 profiles and every published migration. Checkpoint migration `0394_conscious_whizzer.sql` was generated with `pnpm db:generate` and retains the prior idempotent DDL. The Runner vendor rebuild and replay parity checks pass. Server typecheck and all 13 warm-owner variants pass after that rebuild. The imported report-lock patch is byte-identical to master; its intentional patch-context whitespace is retained, and the feature delta passes whitespace checks. No hosted experiment was run. ## Risks The pool adds up to two active connections per instance, shared across agents. Checkpoint delivery can wait behind that bound; it still requires its commit. Steady component-test Postgres CPU rises by about 1.7 percentage points of a two-CPU allocation. These corrections do not remove the stack's control and renewal writes. The migration and key must survive replacement. Fresh-database tests and local load do not establish different-artifact hosted upgrade or rollback continuity. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. ## 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 - [ ] 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>	2026-10-27 21:39:23 -05:00
3 people	585d37d4f2	[codex] Preserve AWS secret provider error classification (#10946) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane operators use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Operators can store managed secret values in AWS Secrets Manager provider vaults. > - The AWS JSON gateway already classifies safe provider failures such as access denial, expired credentials, throttling, and invalid requests. > - The outer provider wrapper was re-normalizing those typed failures, which collapsed an AWS access denial into a generic provider error before the service could produce actionable guidance. > - Missing runtime credentials also need to be recognized as an access problem so operators receive the correct recovery path. > - This pull request preserves typed provider errors, expands credential-related classification, and clarifies the safe credential/IAM remediation text. > - The benefit is that failed AWS secret creation tells operators whether to restore runtime credentials or grant the required capability without exposing AWS account or principal details. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue was found for this exact remaining server-side classification gap. Bug report: - What happened: an AWS Secrets Manager access-denied response could be classified correctly by the JSON gateway and then collapsed to `provider_error` by the outer provider wrapper; missing runtime credentials were also reported generically. - Expected behavior: safe typed AWS failures should retain their classification, and credential resolution failures should surface as access-denied guidance. - Steps to reproduce: configure an AWS provider vault with invalid or missing runtime credentials, or without `secretsmanager:CreateSecret`, then create a Paperclip-managed secret. - Paperclip version/commit: current `master` before this PR. - Deployment mode: Paperclip server with an AWS Secrets Manager provider vault. Related prior work: - Refs #9161 - Refs #9645 ## What Changed - Preserve `SecretProviderClientError` instances returned by the AWS JSON gateway instead of wrapping them as generic provider failures. - Classify missing, expired, invalid, or incorrectly signed AWS runtime credentials as access-denied failures. - Clarify sanitized remediation guidance to cover both credential resolution and `secretsmanager:CreateSecret` authorization. - Add regression coverage for gateway access-denied responses, missing runtime credentials, and the service-level actionable message. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` — changed provider tests passed; the service file was skipped in the first no-DB focused run. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed after a frozen-lockfile dependency refresh. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — 314 files / 3,443 tests passed; one unrelated existing test failed in `plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts` because it observed `heartbeat.scheduling_suppressed` instead of `issue_commented`. The same failure reproduced in isolation and none of this PR's four changed files participate in that test. - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed. ## Risks Low risk. The change affects only error classification and sanitized failure guidance for AWS Secrets Manager operations. Successful secret writes, schemas, migrations, API shapes, and stored secret material are unchanged. The regression tests assert safe classifications while keeping raw AWS account and principal details out of service responses. > 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 family (exact runtime build and context-window size were not exposed), with reasoning, repository editing, shell execution, Git, GitHub, and test execution 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 (not applicable: no documented contract 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> Co-authored-by: commitperclip[bot] <284812584+commitperclip[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-10-26 20:54:18 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	9c442cf48e	feat(connections): deploy and configure Supabase and Vercel (#17217) ... Add governed Supabase and Vercel deployment/configuration connectors with vaulted credentials, agent access policies, approvals, audit, and bounded provider operations. Deliver reviewed REST actions to native agents and guard Vercel preview intent on empty projects. Preserve secret-safe request identity and durable retry behavior. Verified by current-head CI, fresh Greptile 5/5 review, and real-agent deployment/configuration walkthroughs on disposable provider resources. Test resources and temporary provider tokens were removed after verification. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-23 11:37:29 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	2c96f76780	feat(connections): add model-backed prompt injection prevention ... Add opt-in OpenRouter checks at existing tool-result boundaries with regex fallback, service accounting, and settings on Connections. Make migration 0362 safe to replay over existing or partially applied schema state. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 11:32:25 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a590ab769d	Give managed agents persistent cryptographic identities (#15352) ... Give agents persistent Ed25519 identities encrypted with the existing instance master key. Create keys transactionally for new agents and lazily before supported managed runs, expose public identities in the API and agent UI, and protect private material during runtime delivery and output persistence. Preserve identities in recovery backups while giving imported and development-cloned agents fresh keys. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-06 13:57:03 -05:00
3 people	0cf64d36a5	feat(secrets): write through external values and deep-link details (#10196) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Its secrets subsystem can resolve external references such as AWS Secrets Manager values without copying those values into Paperclip custody. > - Operators also need to rotate a referenced secret's value while preserving the same provider reference for consumers inside and outside Paperclip. > - Previously, external-reference rotation could only retarget metadata, and secret detail sheets were driven by local component state rather than shareable navigation state. > - This pull request adds an optional provider write capability, implements AWS Secrets Manager write-through rotation, and exposes capability-aware rotate modes in the UI. > - It also makes secret and each-user definition detail sheets URL-driven and adds a copy-link action. > - The benefit is that operators can update the canonical external value safely while keeping AWS rotation tracking intact, and they can share or navigate directly to secret details. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (`server/`, `ui/`, and `packages/shared`). ### Problem or motivation External-reference secrets can follow a provider-managed value, but Paperclip could not write a replacement value back to providers that support it. Operators had to leave Paperclip, update the value separately, and then return without an auditable Paperclip rotation record. Secret detail sheets also could not be shared or restored through browser history because their selection lived only in component state. ### Proposed solution Add an optional `updateExternalSecretValue` provider capability and surface it as `supportsExternalValueWrites`. Implement AWS writes with `PutSecretValue` while leaving the resolution `versionId` unset so future reads continue following `AWSCURRENT`. Add write-value and retarget modes to the rotate dialog for capable providers. Drive secret detail selection from `?secret=` / `?definition=` query parameters and provide a copy-link action. ### Alternatives considered Converting an external reference into a Paperclip-managed secret would break consumers that depend on the existing provider reference. Pinning reads to the newly written AWS version would prevent later out-of-band rotations from flowing through. Keeping sheet selection only in React state would not support browser Back or shareable links. ### Roadmap alignment This extends the completed “Secrets Manager with per-agent access” roadmap capability; it does not duplicate a separate planned roadmap item. Public GitHub searches found no duplicate or closely related issue or PR. ### Additional context The PR includes focused provider, service, and UI render coverage. Cutter also generated previews for the deep-linked detail sheet and capability-aware rotate modes. ## What Changed - Added optional external-value write support to the secret provider contract and provider descriptors. - Implemented AWS Secrets Manager write-through with `PutSecretValue`, audit material, and compensation when persistence fails after the provider write. - Allowed `secretService.rotate()` value updates for external references while rejecting ambiguous value-plus-retarget combinations and unsupported providers. - Added capability-aware “Write new value” and “Change reference” rotate modes with updated custody and action copy. - Made secret and each-user definition detail sheets source their selection from URL query parameters, compose with folder paths, close through browser history, and expose a copy-link action. - Added provider, service, and UI render coverage for write-through, rollback, capability messaging, dialog modes, and deep links. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts` — 18 passed. - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` — 75 passed. - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx` — 31 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean. ## Risks - External value writes affect the canonical provider secret and therefore all consumers of that AWS secret; the UI explicitly labels this custody behavior. - A provider write can succeed before Paperclip persistence fails. The service records the written version and AWS support includes compensation coverage to restore the prior value where possible; unrecoverable failures return explicit audit-safe error details. - URL-driven sheet state changes navigation behavior; render tests cover deep links, Back/close behavior, and composition with folder query state. - No database migration or breaking API requirement is introduced; providers without the optional capability retain reference-only behavior. > 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 using exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning mode, Codex CLI `0.142.5`, with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. - Earlier implementation commits were assisted by Anthropic `Claude Fable 5` as recorded in their commit trailers; the exact backend model ID and context-window size were not preserved in the workspace metadata. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes, or confirmed no documentation change is required - [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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-27 19:08:07 -05:00
5 people	0713dfa41f	fix: validate session ID as UUID before --resume + error diagnostics (DLD-889) (#1742) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The Claude-local adapter uses `claude --resume <session-id>` to continue prior sessions; the `--resume` value MUST be a UUID per Claude's CLI contract. > - Paperclip internally uses session IDs prefixed with `ses_` (not UUIDs); these get passed straight through to `--resume` and crash the run. > - On top of the crash, when the underlying error path triggers a secret-decryption failure or heartbeat setup failure, the diagnostics are too thin to tell key-mismatch from other failures, and the heartbeat error code is mis-classified as `adapter_failed` instead of `setup_failed`. > - This PR validates `runtimeSessionId` against a UUID regex before letting `canResumeSession` become true, adds `not a valid UUID` to Claude's own retry-error regex, improves AES-256-GCM decryption diagnostics in the local encrypted provider, and re-classifies pre-adapter setup failures. > - The benefit is that Paperclip session IDs are detected and skipped gracefully (logged, no crash), legitimate Claude UUID-rejection errors are treated as retriable, and operators can diagnose decryption/setup failures from the run log. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The `claude-local` adapter passes Paperclip's internal session identifiers (e.g. `ses_…`) straight to `claude --resume <session-id>`. Because Claude's CLI requires the `--resume` argument to be a UUID, the run crashes with a `not a valid UUID` error. When the surrounding code path also hits a secret-decryption failure, the heartbeat reports it as `adapter_failed`, hiding the real `setup_failed` cause and making diagnosis hard. **Expected behavior** Non-UUID session IDs should be detected before `--resume` is called, the run should fall back to a fresh session with a clear log line, and any decryption / setup failure should be reported with enough detail (and the correct error code) for an operator to tell what failed. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Have a persisted task session whose ID is not a UUID (Paperclip-issued `ses_…` form). 2. Trigger a heartbeat that resumes that session via the `claude-local` adapter. 3. Observe: the adapter crashes with a UUID-validation error; if the path also involves a decryption failure, the heartbeat surfaces `adapter_failed` instead of `setup_failed`. ## What Changed - `packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/execute.ts`: Validates `runtimeSessionId` against a UUID regex before setting `canResumeSession`; non-UUID IDs are logged and skipped gracefully. Guards the cwd-mismatch log block on `isValidUuid` so it does not fire for non-UUID session IDs. - `packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/parse.ts`: Adds `not a valid UUID` to the session-error retry regex so Claude's own UUID rejection is treated as a retriable error. - `server/src/services/secrets/local-encrypted-provider.ts`: Wraps AES-256-GCM decryption in try/catch and re-throws with a key fingerprint hint to aid key-mismatch diagnosis. - `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`: Corrects the outer-catch `errorCode` from `adapter_failed` to `setup_failed` for pre-adapter setup failures. - `AGENTS.md`: Adds task/PR/CI governance sections (10–13) and expands the Definition of Done. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local test` covers UUID validation and the parse retry regex. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test src/services/secrets` covers decryption diagnostics. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` ## Risks Low. UUID validation is strictly additive (non-UUIDs that previously crashed now log and skip). Decryption diagnostics only fire on failure paths. The `setup_failed` error code change is a clearer classification, not a behavior change. ## Model Used Claude (Opus 4.6) — used to identify the UUID-validation root cause, mirror existing parse patterns, and re-classify the heartbeat setup error code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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 — no UI changes) - [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 (in progress) - [ ] 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: CTO Agent <cto@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-09 20:21:10 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	d67347be77	[codex] Provider vault secrets UX (#6381) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents that need scoped, auditable access to secrets > - Hosted and external deployments need provider vault configuration without exposing secret values in Paperclip metadata > - AWS Secrets Manager vault setup previously required too much manual operator knowledge > - Provider vault discovery and removal belong together as an independent secrets-management improvement > - This pull request adds AWS provider vault discovery/prefill plus vault removal flows > - The benefit is a safer operator path for configuring external secret storage before higher-level cloud workflows depend on it ## What Changed - Added shared validators/types for AWS provider vault discovery payloads and safe provider metadata. - Implemented AWS provider vault discovery preview on the server. - Added provider vault removal service/route behavior. - Added Secrets page UI for discovery prefill, removal messaging, and related rendering coverage. - Added Storybook provider-vault fixtures and captured screenshots for the new UX states. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/secret.test.ts server/src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts ui/src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx` - Result: 4 files passed, 1 embedded Postgres-backed file skipped on this host because local Postgres init was unavailable. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Storybook screenshot capture against `Product/Secrets` on `http://127.0.0.1:60381/iframe.html?id=product-secrets--secrets-inventory&viewMode=story&globals=theme:dark` ## Screenshots Provider vaults tab after this change:  AWS discovery candidate flow:  Provider vault removal confirmation:  ## Risks - Secret provider metadata handling must remain non-sensitive; validators reject credential-bearing Vault URLs and sensitive AWS discovery keys. - AWS discovery depends on deployment credentials being configured correctly outside Paperclip-managed company secrets. > 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 with local shell/git/tool use. Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the local Paperclip adapter 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>	2026-05-19 15:50:23 -05:00
3 people	778e775c35	Add secrets provider vaults and remote import (#5429) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies and needs secrets handling to work across local development, hosted operators, and governed agent execution. > - The affected subsystem is the company-scoped secrets control plane: database schema, server services/routes, CLI workflows, and the Secrets settings UI. > - The gap was that secrets were local-only and operators could not manage provider vaults or import existing remote references without exposing plaintext. > - This branch adds provider vault configuration plus an AWS Secrets Manager remote-import path while preserving company boundaries, binding context, and audit trails. > - I kept the PR to a single branch PR, removed unrelated lockfile/package drift, rebased the full branch onto the current `public-gh/master`, and addressed fresh Greptile findings. > - The benefit is a reviewable implementation of provider-backed secrets with focused tests covering provider selection, import conflicts, deleted secret reuse, rotation guards, and AWS signing behavior. ## What Changed - Added provider vault support for company secrets, including provider config storage, default vault handling, health checks, binding usage, access events, and remote import preview/commit. - Added an AWS Secrets Manager provider using SigV4 request signing, bounded request timeouts, namespace guardrails, cached runtime credential resolution, and external-reference linking without plaintext reads. - Added Secrets UI surfaces for vault management and remote import, plus CLI/API documentation for setup and operations. - Stabilized routine webhook secret binding paths and SSH environment-driver fixture bindings discovered during verification. - Addressed Greptile and CI findings: no lockfile/package drift, monotonic migration metadata, disabled-vault default races, soft-deleted secret hiding/recreate behavior, remove behavior with disabled vaults, soft-deleted external-reference re-import, non-active rotation guards, managed-secret soft deletion through PATCH, and per-call AWS SDK credential client churn. - Rebased this branch onto `public-gh/master` at `0e1a5828` and force-pushed with lease to keep this as the single PR for the branch. ## Verification - `git fetch public-gh master` - `git rebase public-gh/master` - `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | grep '^pnpm-lock\.yaml$' || true` confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the PR diff. - Confirmed migration ordering: master ends at `0081_optimal_dormammu`; this PR adds `0082_dry_vision` and `0083_company_secret_provider_configs`. - Inspected migrations for repeat safety: new tables/indexes use `IF NOT EXISTS`; foreign keys are guarded by `DO $$ ... IF NOT EXISTS`; column additions use `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. - `pnpm test:run` ran the full stable Vitest path before the Greptile follow-up commits; it completed with 3 timing-related failures under parallel load: `codex-local-execute.test.ts`, `cursor-local-execute.test.ts`, and `environment-service.test.ts`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts` passed on targeted rerun (`24/24`). - `pnpm build` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. Vite reported existing chunk-size/dynamic-import warnings. - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`26/26`). - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`39/39`). - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - Captured Storybook screenshots from `ui/storybook-static` for visual review. - Latest PR checks on `5ca3a5cf`: `policy`, serialized server suites 1/4-4/4, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review` pass; aggregate `verify` is still registering the completed child checks. - Greptile review loop continued through the latest requested pass; all Greptile review threads are resolved and the latest `Greptile Review` check on `5ca3a5cf` passed with 0 comments added. ## Screenshots Before: the provider-vault and remote-import surfaces did not exist on `master`; these are after-state screenshots from the Storybook fixtures.    ## Risks - Migration risk: this adds new secret provider tables and extends existing secret rows. The migrations were checked for monotonic ordering and idempotent guards, but reviewers should still inspect upgrade behavior carefully. - Provider risk: AWS support uses direct SigV4 requests. Automated tests cover signing, request timeouts, vault-config selection, namespace guardrails, pending-version archival, sanitized provider errors, and service-level cleanup paths. A real-vault AWS smoke test remains deployment validation for an operator with AWS credentials rather than an unverified merge blocker in this local branch. - UI risk: the Secrets page and import dialog are large new surfaces; screenshots are included above for reviewer inspection. - Verification risk: the full local stable test command hit parallel-load timing failures, although the exact failed files passed when rerun directly. - Operational risk: remote import intentionally avoids plaintext reads; operators must understand that imported external references resolve at runtime and may fail if AWS permissions change. > 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 with local shell/tool use in the Paperclip worktree. Exact 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 - [ ] 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-05-09 18:22:17 -05:00
DottaandClaude Opus 4.6	f60c1001ec	refactor: rename packages to @paperclipai and CLI binary to paperclipai ... Rename all workspace packages from @paperclip/* to @paperclipai/* and the CLI binary from `paperclip` to `paperclipai` in preparation for npm publishing. Bump CLI version to 0.1.0 and add package metadata (description, keywords, license, repository, files). Update all imports, documentation, user-facing messages, and tests accordingly. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-03-03 08:45:26 -06:00
ForgottenandClaude Opus 4.6	11901ae5d8	Implement secrets service with local encryption, redaction, and runtime resolution ... Add AES-256-GCM local encrypted secrets provider with auto-generated master key, stub providers for AWS/GCP/Vault, and a secrets service that normalizes adapter configs (converting sensitive inline values to secret refs in strict mode) and resolves secret refs back to plain values at runtime. Extract redaction utilities from agent routes into shared module. Redact sensitive values in activity logs, config revisions, and approval payloads. Block rollback of revisions containing redacted secrets. Filter hidden issues from list queries. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-02-19 15:43:52 -06:00