mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-22 16:51:28 +02:00
571ce024bfc22c162c3988ef7f433d46e239368f
262
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
9064cfd09e |
feat(codex-local): give each Codex account its own home and path secret (#12709)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for companies that use AI agents for work > - Local adapters connect Paperclip agents to provider command line tools > - The Codex adapter stores login data in a shared company home > - A shared home cannot keep credentials for more than one Codex account > - This pull request gives each account a safe home and a matching company secret > - The benefit is that one company can use multiple Codex accounts at the same time ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** A company can hold only one Codex subscription credential because device login uses one shared home. A second account cannot log in without replacing or conflicting with the first credential. **Proposed solution** This change validates the vendor account identifier, stores each credential in its own home, and creates a company secret that points to that home. Repeat login calls return success when the matching secret already exists. **Roadmap alignment** The change supports the roadmap goal for centrally managed secrets with scoped access and audited resolution. **Additional context** The security review returned approve with no blocking finding. The branch adds shared account-handle validation and tests for device login and the Codex local adapter. ## What Changed - Add strict allowlist validation for Codex account handles. - Store each Codex account credential in a separate home under the Codex cache root. - Verify that the resolved account home stays inside the cache root. - Create the `CODEX_HOME_<handle>` company secret for each account. - Keep repeat and concurrent login calls safe and idempotent. - Add shared helper and route, adapter, and validation tests. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local test` passes with 343 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test src/__tests__/agent-device-login-routes.test.ts` passes with 25 tests. - The adapter suite passes with 23 tests. - The shared package and Codex adapter typechecks pass. - Continuous integration must pass on every check before merge. ## Risks The account handle becomes part of a directory path and secret name. The strict allowlist and root containment check reduce path traversal risk. Existing single-account homes remain unchanged unless a new device login creates an account-specific home. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 (exact runtime model ID: gpt-5), with tool use and code execution. The runtime context window is not exposed in this run. ## 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 - [ ] 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
|
87d05e194b |
feat(work-products): add rich cards and run artifact inventory (#12717)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies. > - Agent outputs must remain visible after a run and easy to inspect from a task. > - The thread and artifact inventory need one consistent rich-card vocabulary. > - Run uploads also need durable artifact registration and producing-run context. > - Reviewers need deterministic examples for each rich-card kind and state. > - This pull request adds the shared presentation, registration, inventory, and Storybook review coverage. > - The benefit is a complete output path that reviewers can inspect without seeded data. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This change improves work-product presentation in task threads and the task Artifacts tab. **Subsystem affected** The change affects shared work-product contracts, the runner diff path, server attachment and work-product services, GitHub metadata refresh, the React board UI, and Storybook. **Current behavior** The thread used generic cards. Some files uploaded by a run existed only as message attachments. The Artifacts tab showed a flat list without run context or filters. Storybook showed only one resting card per kind. **Proposed behavior** The thread uses rich cards for supported work-product types. Each run-produced file registers one attachment-backed artifact work product. The Artifacts tab groups outputs by run and supports filters. Storybook shows every kind and requested state, PR lifecycle states, stats variants, truncation, mobile layout, and message-tail media. **Reason and benefit** Users can identify outputs quickly. Reviewers can inspect all card permutations without creating task data. **Breaking changes** None. The metadata fields and automatic artifact registration are additive. Existing attachments and work products keep their current behavior. ## What Changed - Added a shared rich work-product card with kind-specific content and a compact inventory variant. - Added pull-request and commit diff metadata plus bounded GitHub state refresh. - Added media strips and typed file chips to message-tail attachments. - Registered each run-produced attachment as an artifact work product in the same server transaction. - Grouped task artifacts by run with agent and timestamp headings. - Added type and run filters, image thumbnails, compact cards, and a company Artifacts link. - Added a Storybook kind-by-state matrix with stats variants for all eight visual kinds. - Added PR open, draft, merged, and closed examples, long-title truncation, an exact 375-pixel viewport, and message-tail overflow coverage. - Closed reconciled runtime work products when the linked runtime stops or disappears, so the card shows `Stopped` instead of `Unhealthy`. ### Screenshots Before: one resting card per kind.  After: the kind and state matrix.  After: message-tail media at 375 pixels.  [Open the Storybook evidence viewer](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-work-product-storybook-20260902/). The earlier artifact inventory comparison remains available in the [artifact inventory viewer](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-artifacts-inventory-proof-20260902/). ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - `pnpm build-storybook` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/work-product-runtime-reconciliation.test.ts` passed with 5 tests. - Chromium visual checks passed at desktop and 375-pixel widths. - All 30 latest-head GitHub checks passed. One unrelated annotation test was flaky and passed on its single retry. - Greptile passed at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The Storybook change adds review fixtures only. The runtime fix changes read-time reconciliation without database writes. - The matrix is intentionally large so every permutation stays visible in one review surface. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This work does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 and GPT-5.6-sol across this pull request. Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. The context-window size is not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My public branch name describes the change and contains no internal task id - [x] I have run tests locally and the changed-path tests 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 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
|
4b6de5327e |
Remove cheap model profiles (#12683)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents that use different model providers and adapters. > - Paperclip must keep agent execution rules clear and predictable. > - The cheap-model profile added a second execution mode across adapters, task recovery, APIs, and the UI. > - That mode increased configuration and recovery complexity. > - This pull request removes the cheap-model profile as a product feature. > - The benefit is one model-selection path for normal work and recovery work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This change simplifies model selection across agent configuration, task execution, recovery, and adapter capabilities. **Current behavior** Paperclip exposes cheap-model profiles in adapter metadata, agent runtime configuration, task overrides, recovery rules, APIs, and the board UI. Recovery work can select a different model profile from the agent's configured model. **Proposed behavior** Paperclip uses the agent's configured model for normal work and recovery work. Status-only recovery stays limited to coordination work. The API rejects legacy model-profile configuration. A migration removes stored model-profile values from existing agent, issue, and historical revision records. **Reason and benefit** One model path reduces configuration, API, UI, and recovery complexity. It also prevents status recovery from becoming a separate product-level model-routing feature. **Breaking changes** This change removes model-profile fields and adapter capability metadata. Existing stored model-profile values are removed by an idempotent migration. The validators reject new legacy profile values with clear errors. ## What Changed - Removed model-profile types, adapter capabilities, API fields, and model selection logic. - Removed cheap-model controls from agent and task UI surfaces. - Kept status-only recovery limited to coordination context while normal continuations use the configured agent model. - Added an idempotent migration that removes stored model-profile values from agents, issues, and configuration revisions without changing issue update timestamps. - Updated tests and product documentation for the single-model behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm test:run` completed with 5,607 passing tests and 8 environment-sensitive failures in unrelated fixed-port and database-deadlock suites. The same failures repeated in an isolated rerun. CI is the final clean-room result. ## Risks - This is an intentional breaking change for clients that send model-profile fields. - The migration changes legacy agent, issue, and configuration-revision JSON. It is idempotent and preserves unrelated fields and issue update timestamps. - The change is cross-cutting because the removed feature existed in adapters, shared contracts, the server, plugins, and the UI. > 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 with `gpt-5`. Reasoning and tool use were enabled. The runtime did not expose the 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) - [ ] 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
1ab159d3a7 |
feat(apps): consolidate connector management (#12684)
Completes the post-managed-OAuth connector lifecycle, Paperclip Cloud provisioning defaults, governed test flows, and consolidated Apps UI.\n\nCo-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
141f202e40 |
Clean up experimental settings features (#12681)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app that people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Instance settings control optional product features and developer tools. > - The experimental settings page mixed active experiments, internal tools, and old recovery controls. > - Some workspace links also used the selected company instead of the workspace owner. > - These problems made settings hard to scan and could send users to the wrong company route. > - This pull request removes old controls, groups developer settings, and resolves workspace links from workspace data. > - The benefit is a smaller settings surface and correct workspace navigation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the instance experimental settings page, task watchdog controls, dependency wake recovery, and execution workspace routes. **Current behavior** The settings page shows old recovery controls and mixes product experiments with internal developer settings. Task watchdogs require an extra feature flag. Some direct workspace links use the current company prefix instead of the company that owns the workspace. **Proposed behavior** Remove the old task recovery experiment and its unused API surface. Make task watchdog controls available without the removed flag. Put worktree execution and managed environment controls in the developer section. Resolve direct workspace links from the workspace owner and reject a company prefix that does not own the workspace. **Reason and benefit** The smaller settings page is easier to understand. The server keeps only the dependency wake backstop that it still uses. Workspace links open under the correct company route. **Breaking changes** This removes the experimental issue graph recovery preview and run endpoints. It also removes the task watchdog feature flag. Task watchdog data and dependency wake behavior remain available. ## What Changed - Removed the old task watchdog and issue graph recovery feature flags. - Removed the old issue graph recovery preview, run controls, API contracts, and unused recovery implementation. - Kept resolved dependency wakes as the scheduler backstop. - Grouped product experiments and Paperclip developer settings on the instance settings page. - Made task watchdog controls available without an extra experimental flag. - Added owner-aware redirects and company checks for execution workspace routes. - Hid the false stopped-state badge while a workspace has no active runtime state. - Updated focused server and UI tests for the new behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run` completed with 5,620 passing tests and four failures in unchanged workspace runtime port tests. The same four failures repeat when the two files run alone. - The complete GitHub CI matrix passed, including all server, serialized server, build, canary, and end-to-end jobs. ## Risks - Clients that call the removed experimental recovery endpoints must stop calling them. - The route checks depend on workspace detail access. An unknown or cross-company workspace returns the global not-found page. - There are no database migrations, lockfile changes, workflow changes, or design image changes. > 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 with GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed. Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandDev Agent
|
25cf079ec5 |
feat(runner): add Codex-native application integration (#12591)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package is useful only when the application can start, observe, and recover a native Codex run safely. > - Existing direct adapters must keep their current execution and finalization paths. > - The application boundary therefore needs additive persistence, authorization, coordination, and recovery behind an explicit experimental adapter. > - This pull request adds that Codex-only boundary without activating generalized providers, remote environments, or the later task/SDK surfaces. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Shared contracts, database persistence, adapter utilities, server native-runtime services, and the experimental Paperclip Runner adapter. **Problem or motivation** The already-landed runner package has a qualified Codex path, but the application needs durable native-run state, guarded runtime selection, authenticated coordination, tool security, finalization, and recovery before the experimental adapter can be exercised safely. **Proposed solution** Add a Codex-only `paperclip_runner` application path behind the existing default-off native-runner setting. Bind native state and coordination to company/run identity, preserve persisted-run recovery, and leave every direct adapter on its existing legacy execution path. **Alternatives considered** The earlier stack boundary introduced a generalized executor and remote-environment lifecycle here. That made this PR depend on implementations in higher PRs and changed reusable sandbox behavior globally. Those pieces are now deferred together to #12592. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md does not list a conflicting native-runner integration project. This change adds the application boundary for the existing Runner architecture. ## What Changed - Added native run/result/finalization/provider-trace persistence, shared validators, and idempotent migration/replay coverage. - Added guarded Codex-only runtime selection, authenticated PRP coordination, recovery, finalization, and interaction services. - Added run/company-bound tool-gateway authorization, credential redaction, SSRF protections, and replay-safe behavior. - Added the explicit `paperclip_runner` adapter behind the default-off rollout setting. - Preserved legacy answered-question wake projection and direct-adapter execution/finalization paths. - Hardened cancellation so only owned in-memory child processes are signaled; persisted recycled PIDs/process groups are never trusted. - Retained the narrow Claude ACPX isolated-context security follow-up discovered after #12590. - Deferred the generalized executor, provider ingress, remote lifecycle, SDK/lab/eval work, release-process changes, and lockfile. ## Verification - Changed-file delta against `master`: 133 files. - GitHub Actions is the authoritative verification environment for this PR. - Full CI, security, and Greptile review will run on this lowest unmerged stack PR. - Local tests/build/typecheck were not run because this checkout is resource constrained. - Static diff/reference checks pass, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. ## Risks - This touches central heartbeat and agent-route code, so legacy compatibility is the primary risk. - Runtime selection remains Codex-only and explicit; direct Codex, Claude, OpenCode, process, HTTP, and plugin adapters remain on their existing paths. - Fresh native starts fail closed while the rollout flag is off; persisted native records remain readable and recoverable. - Cancellation, company/run binding, tool calls, status decisions, and completion writes are guarded or replay-safe. > 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. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with repository tools, code execution, and parallel agent review. ## 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — GitHub Actions is authoritative for this resource-constrained checkout - [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 risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI and security gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable findings - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge ## Stack - Position: 3 of 5 overall; lowest of 3 currently unmerged - Base: `master` - Previous: [#12590](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12590), qualified Claude ACPX runtime — merged - Next: [#12592](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12592), generalized Codex executor, task experience, and developer SDKs --------- Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
bc9ba7cd26 |
feat(runner): project native runs into task threads (#12321)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The experimental Paperclip Runner can execute a guarded Codex run and persist provider-neutral events. > - The task page still reads direct-adapter transcripts and cannot present those native events. > - Structured runner questions must also use the existing task interaction experience. > - Runtime selection must use the persisted run mode, not an adapter name or a current feature flag. > - This pull request projects native events and questions into the existing task thread. > - Direct adapters keep their existing transcript, composer, interaction, and finalization paths. > - The benefit is a complete native Codex task thread without a behavior change for existing adapters. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12202. This pull request replaces that stale implementation on current `master`. **What happened?** The server persists native runner events and structured input requests. The task page only consumes direct-adapter transcripts. A native run therefore cannot present a complete transcript, usage, or question flow through the normal task experience. **Expected behavior** Native runs project persisted provider-neutral events into the existing task thread. Native structured questions use the existing interaction card. Direct adapters retain their current behavior. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable the experimental runner. 2. Start a native Codex run that emits progress, usage, a structured question, and a final reply. 3. Open the task page. 4. Observe that the direct-adapter transcript path cannot project the native event records. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `67f9867bc`. ## What Changed - Add the canonical structured-question validator and shared contract exports. - Materialize native input requests as existing task interactions. - Validate native answers and deliver them through the durable question-response receipt. - Resume the original PRP request with an idempotent `request.resolve` command. - Project native messages, tool activity, cumulative usage, and final replies into the existing transcript model. - Propagate persisted `runtimeMode` to the task page and select native handling only for `runtimeMode: "native"`. - Expire pending interactions through the shared issue service on every terminal transition, including decisions, stalled reviews, tree control, and pipeline retry cleanup. - Queue native run cancellation while a transaction is open and execute it only after the owning transaction commits. - Keep nonterminal and non-runner issue paths on their existing service call shapes and behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed, including the Rust runner release build and protocol/catalog drift gates. - Focused native-thread and lifecycle suites — 18 files and 481 tests passed during review. - `issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` — 19/19 passed after the final transactional-queue expectation update. - `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` — 87/87 passed in the final isolated compatibility rerun. - GitHub Actions — policy, build, canary, typecheck/release registry, 5 serialized server shards, 8 general-test shards, 3 browser shards, and both aggregate gates passed on `7793f3193`. - Security — Snyk, Socket Project Report, Socket PR Alerts, and Superagent passed. - Greptile — 5/5 on `7793f3193`; all actionable review threads resolved. - `git diff --check` — passed. - Diff against `master`: 44 files. ## Compatibility Boundary - Native transcript polling only runs when the persisted run reports `runtimeMode: "native"`. - Missing or legacy runtime modes continue through `useLiveRunTranscripts`. - Legacy questions keep the existing optional free-text choice. - Native closed select sets can suppress that legacy fallback. - Terminal cleanup uses the same issue service for native and legacy interactions; only a bound native question schedules a native run cancellation. - Native cancellation happens after transaction commit, so failed or rolled-back writes do not cancel a still-valid run. - The durable delivery service checks the original native request before it considers a continuation run. - This pull request adds no migration, dependency, workflow, manifest, or lockfile change. ## Risks The main risk is routing a direct-adapter task through native handling or changing terminal issue behavior. The implementation selects the native path only from persisted runtime facts, retains the existing nonterminal call shape, and schedules native cancellation only for a validated bound native question after commit. Focused and repository-wide tests cover both paths. Native requests remain bound to the company, issue, run, and agent; answers are validated, durable, and idempotent across reconnects. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The client does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the affected local tests and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated the compatibility notes for this change - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
d387cc0ff0 |
feat(connections): add managed external MCP connectors (#12346)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connection intents need secure provider implementations to complete setup. > - Some providers use managed OAuth or external credential brokers. > - Those tokens must stay out of durable Paperclip state and fail closed when refresh fails. > - This pull request adds managed connector backends and the required storage contract. > - The benefit is safer provider setup with governed credential lifecycles. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 8 of 11. It depends on stack 7 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add managed Google Workspace and external connector backends. - Add Vercel Connect support without storing provider bearer tokens. - Add replay-safe migration 0232 and its generated snapshot. - Fail closed and clear stale token bindings when organization OAuth refresh needs reauthorization. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - Result: 194 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/services/remote-url-credentials.test.ts` (5 passed, including URL userinfo vault extraction) ## Risks - Broker metadata errors can block provider setup. - OAuth refresh failure disables the shared organization connection until reauthorization. - Migration 0232 is generated, ordered after 0231, and safe to replay. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have linked the public source pull request with `Refs #` - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b3343dbd64 |
feat(connections): add self-serve intent runtime (#12345)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need a governed way to request app connections during issue work. > - The catalog now describes the available providers and setup methods. > - A request must become a durable, company-scoped intent before an operator acts on it. > - This pull request adds that intent runtime across server, agent, CLI, and shared contracts. > - The benefit is a safe bridge from agent need to operator-approved setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 7 of 11. It depends on stack 6 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add connection intent types, validation, service logic, and routes. - Add agent runtime tools and CLI support for connection requests. - Add issue-thread interaction support for connection intents. - Add runtime, route, adapter, and contract tests. - Hold the final resolved-continuation row lock through asynchronous adapter preparation until an actual process spawn, so parking or reassignment cannot cross that boundary. - Report Hermes Gateway's first remote run request through the shared dispatch hook so the resolved-intent lock is released at the true dispatch boundary. - Revalidate the addressed user's live non-viewer membership and connection-management authority for every intent mutation, including OAuth completion. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - Result: 176 tests passed. - `pnpm build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` (32 passed; includes non-process dispatch lock-release coverage) - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/connection-intents-service.test.ts -t "addressed-user mutation"` (1 passed) - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t "binds OAuth callback completion to the initiating board session"` (1 passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter test -- src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` (23 passed; includes dispatch-hook ordering and exactly-once coverage) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter typecheck` ## Risks - A malformed intent could create an unusable operator request. - Validators and company checks reject invalid or cross-company requests. - The final continuation gate holds the issue row lock through adapter preparation until process or remote dispatch; later operator changes use the normal active-run interruption path. - The change does not add a database migration. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have linked the public source pull request with `Refs #` - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
fcb2e99e8f |
feat(apps): expand the self-serve connection catalog (#12344)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A useful app store needs accurate and selectable provider definitions. > - Local brand assets now cover the expanded provider set. > - Provider methods differ in transport, authentication, ownership, and required scope. > - This pull request expands the catalog and encodes those provider contracts. > - The benefit is a larger self-serve store with explicit setup choices. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 6 of 11. It depends on stack 5 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add and update provider definitions for the self-serve catalog. - Add Google Workspace connection methods and capability profiles. - Add catalog generation, ingestion, URL matching, and contract tests. - Update legacy key tests to use a provider that still uses header credentials. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - Result: 164 tests passed. - `pnpm build` ## Risks - An incorrect provider definition can offer the wrong setup method. - Contract tests verify transport, authentication, and provider URL behavior. - The change does not add a database migration. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Refs #` or (b) described the issue in this pull request - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
20ccf3f476 |
feat(apps): add connection grants and delegated identities (#12341)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External tools need explicit identity and access boundaries. > - Shared connection credentials cannot represent every user-scoped use case. > - Grants must stay company-scoped and support safe delegation. > - This pull request adds connection grants, identity rules, and their database contract. > - The benefit is durable control over which identity an agent may use. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 3 of 11. It depends on stack 2 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add company and user connection grants. - Add delegated identity and membership rules. - Synchronize database, shared, server, and UI contracts. - Register the grant-member replacement route in the OpenAPI surface in the same layer that mounts it. - Add migration 0231 with replay-safe guards and coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` (5 passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Incorrect grant selection could expose the wrong credential scope. - The service enforces company and subject boundaries before credential use. - Migration 0231 is generated, ordered after 0230, and safe to replay. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked a public issue or pull request with `Refs #` - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
cabc9146d0 |
feat(apps): add secure remote MCP and PostHog setup (#12339)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps give those agents governed access to external tools. > - Remote MCP setup needs secure endpoint validation and durable credentials. > - PostHog needs both browser sign-in and personal API key setup paths. > - This pull request adds the shared remote MCP foundation and the PostHog definition. > - The benefit is a secure and reusable base for later app connection work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 1 of 11. It replaces the first reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add guarded remote MCP setup and credential handling. - Add PostHog OAuth and API key connection methods. - Add focused server, shared contract, and UI coverage. - Keep the migration replay-safe and idempotent. - Give the late-close security regression the same 10-second CI headroom as the adjacent real-timer handshake test. - Synchronize fake-timer handshake tests at the exact ensure-session boundary so real filesystem setup cannot race the fake deadline. - Drive PTY overflow coverage only after listener registration so scheduling cannot reorder the test fixture. ## Verification - pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-worker-manager.test.ts (220 passed; affected cases also passed five focused stress repetitions) - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts -t "never leaks a sandbox-provided value from a late close rejection into logs or the result"` (1 passed) - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts -t "never promotes a late ensureSession resolution|closes a late-resolving real handle exactly once"` (2 passed) - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Remote endpoint validation can reject configurations that previously passed without checks. - OAuth configuration errors can block setup until the operator corrects the provider settings. - The migration uses guarded statements so repeated execution is safe. - The test-only synchronization changes do not affect runtime behavior; they remove filesystem/fake-clock and listener-registration races observed under parallel CI load. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have 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 - [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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
6154e00f26 |
feat(server): add a task-drain admission hold to the instance API (#12485)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server admits agent work through heartbeat scheduling and execution paths > - Operators need to stop new work before maintenance or a graceful shutdown > - A process restart alone does not provide a reusable admission control primitive > - This pull request adds an instance API that holds new task admission and reports process quiescence > - The benefit is a small, auditable control that lets operators wait for active work without a restart ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Operators cannot hold new task admission without restarting the Paperclip process. A restart can interrupt maintenance flows and does not provide a status signal for active work. **Proposed solution** Add `GET /instance/task-drain`, `POST /instance/task-drain`, and `DELETE /instance/task-drain`. The server keeps the drain state in process memory, applies it to every scheduling suppression path, supports an optional TTL up to 24 hours, and reports active wake and run counts. **Alternatives considered** A timer would clear the drain after its TTL, but it could keep the Node.js event loop open during shutdown. A database row would add storage and query work for process-local state. The implementation uses lazy expiry and process memory instead. **Roadmap alignment** The change supports the roadmap goal for enforced outcomes and safe recovery actions. It does not duplicate a listed roadmap item. **Additional context** This is a server and shared-package change. It adds no user interface and no database migration. ## What Changed - Add process-local task-drain state with lazy TTL expiry. - Add task-drain admission suppression to the shared heartbeat resolver. - Add instance routes to read, start, and stop a task drain. - Add validation for positive TTL values and the shared 24-hour maximum. - Add activity records for drain mutations and tests for status, access control, validation, and suppression. ## Verification - Run `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-task-drain.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-scheduling-suppression.test.ts`. - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec tsc --noEmit`. - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` and compare its known pre-existing errors with the base commit. - Confirm that pull request CI reaches a terminal green state. ## Risks The drain state exists only in process memory, so a restart clears it. This behavior matches the process-local design. A drain without a TTL remains active until an operator calls the delete route. The status route reads in-memory activity sets and does not query stale database rows. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, extended reasoning with tool use and code execution. The exact runtime context window is not exposed by the execution environment. ## 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
d9449e636e |
feat(onboarding): sign in to an agent provider during onboarding (#12440)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - New organizations create their first agent through the onboarding wizard > - The wizard does not show provider sign-in when a host credential is absent or unknown > - The create step also gives unclear feedback when the provider needs authentication > - This pull request adds a safe auth signal and a provider sign-in step for sandbox drivers > - The benefit is a clearer onboarding path with no token or account data in the signal ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (server API, shared types, and UI) **Problem or motivation** The onboarding wizard can fail when the selected provider needs authentication. It does not tell the person how to complete sign-in. **Proposed solution** Add a status-only provider auth signal. Show the sign-in panel for sandbox drivers when the signal says `absent` or `unknown`. Apply a stored Claude login to the new agent and block creation when the adapter test reports missing authentication. **Alternatives considered** The wizard could hide the sign-in panel when the signal read fails. This would hide a needed action, so this pull request shows the panel when the signal is unknown. **Roadmap alignment** The change supports the roadmap goal for scoped and audited credential bindings. **Additional context** The auth signal returns only `present`, `absent`, or `unknown`. It never returns a token, identifier, or account name. ## What Changed - Add `GET /api/companies/:companyId/adapters/:type/auth-signal` with company and permission checks. - Add shared auth-signal types and the UI query path. - Apply a stored Claude login by reference without reading its token. - Show the provider sign-in panel only for sandbox drivers with interactive terminal support. - Block agent creation when the provider test reports missing authentication. - Add route, wizard, and end-to-end test coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test adapter-auth-signal-routes` passes 50 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui test OnboardingWizard` passes 69 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` exits with code 0. - The `e2e_shards` lane runs `tests/e2e/onboarding.spec.ts`. ## Risks The route reads a host-local readiness signal. It returns `unknown` on read errors and never exposes credential data. The UI may add a sign-in step when the signal is unavailable. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, extended reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact context window was not provided. ## 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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
bc1a21564f |
Remove the company brand color and per-company attachment limit (#12291)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A company is the top-level container, and the company General page
holds its settings
> - Two of those settings did almost nothing: the brand color only
tinted the generated company icon, and the attachment size limit sat
under the deployment-level `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` cap that
already bounded every upload
> - A setting that changes one icon hue, and a setting that can only
lower a limit the operator already set, are not worth the page space or
the code that carries them
> - This pull request deletes both settings from the UI, the validators,
the API contract, the server, and the database
> - With the deployment cap as the only limit left, the message a person
sees when an upload is rejected has to name that limit in terms they can
act on, so the raw byte count becomes a human-readable size
> - The benefit is a shorter company General page for every deployment,
one attachment limit instead of two, and less code between an upload and
its ceiling
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue. The description below follows
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The company General page (`/company/settings`), the `PATCH
/api/companies/{companyId}` and `PATCH
/api/companies/{companyId}/branding` request contracts, and the
attachment upload limit on task, case, and company-import uploads.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: `ui/`, `server/`, `packages/shared`, `packages/db`.
**Current behavior**
The company General page shows an "Appearance" section with three
controls: Logo, Brand color, and Attachment size limit. The brand color
is a hex value that feeds one thing — the hue of the generated company
pattern icon. Companies that never set one already get a hue derived
from the company name. The attachment size limit is a per-company byte
count stored on `companies.attachment_max_bytes`. Every upload path
clamps it against the deployment-level `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES`
cap, so the per-company value can only lower a limit the operator
already chose.
**Proposed behavior**
The Appearance section keeps the Logo control only. The company pattern
icon always derives its hue from the company name. Every attachment path
reads the deployment cap directly, so `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES`
is the single limit. An upload rejected by that limit says so in human
units — "File is larger than the 10 MB limit" rather than a raw byte
count. The `companies.brand_color` and `companies.attachment_max_bytes`
columns are dropped, and both fields leave the company API contract.
**Reason and benefit**
Both settings ask an operator to make a decision that changes almost
nothing. The brand color moves one icon hue on a page that also lets you
upload a real logo, which overrides the icon entirely. The attachment
limit reads as a real control but cannot raise anything, so it is a
second place to look when an upload is rejected. Removing both shortens
the page every deployment sees, removes a company-scoped read from the
task attachment upload path, and leaves one attachment limit to reason
about instead of two.
**Breaking changes**
The company API responses no longer include `brandColor` or
`attachmentMaxBytes`, and `GET /api/invites/{token}` no longer includes
`companyBrandColor`. `PATCH /api/companies/{companyId}/branding` is
strict, so a request that sends `brandColor` now returns 400; the
non-strict `PATCH /api/companies/{companyId}` schema strips it. Company
packages exported by older versions still import: the portability
company manifest schema is non-strict, so the retired keys are stripped
and ignored rather than rejected. Companies that stored a brand color
lose it — their icon reverts to the name-derived hue that every company
without a color already used.
## What Changed
- Removed the "Brand color" and "Attachment size limit" fields from the
company General page, along with their state, dirty checks, save
payload, and Save-button gating.
- Removed `brandColor` and `attachmentMaxBytes` from
`createCompanySchema`, `updateCompanySchema`, and
`updateCompanyBrandingSchema`, and deleted the now-orphaned
`DEFAULT_COMPANY_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` and
`MAX_COMPANY_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` constants.
- Removed both fields from the `Company` type, the portability manifest
type and schema, and the `companiesApi.update` payload allowlist.
- Dropped `brandColor` from `CompanyPatternIcon` and its callers, so the
icon hue always comes from the company name. Deleted the now-unused
`hexToHue` helper and the now-unused `pickTextColorForSolidBg` export.
- Stopped emitting `brandColor` from the company service selection and
from the invite-summary and invite-branding payloads in
`server/src/routes/access.ts`.
- Replaced `normalizeIssueAttachmentMaxBytes` with the deployment cap:
task attachments, case attachments, and company import now use
`MAX_ATTACHMENT_BYTES` directly. The helper is deleted.
- Added `formatAttachmentSize()` next to `MAX_ATTACHMENT_BYTES` and
routed every over-limit message through it, so a rejected upload names
the limit in human units instead of raw bytes: `Image exceeds 10485760
bytes` becomes `Image is larger than the 10 MB limit`. Enforcement is
unchanged — the same single cap, the same multer limits, the same status
codes and response shapes.
- Added migration
`0229_drop_company_brand_color_and_attachment_max_bytes.sql` and removed
both columns from the Drizzle `companies` schema.
- Kept legacy imports working: the portability company manifest schema
is non-strict, so older packages carrying the retired keys still import
with the keys ignored.
- Updated the skill API reference and the implementation spec, and
pruned the token-extraction allowlist entries that the removed code made
stale.
## Verification
Commands run from the repository root:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — pass
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — pass (includes
`check:migrations`, which validates the new migration number and journal
entry)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — pass
- server typecheck via `node_modules/.bin/tsc --noEmit` in `server/` —
pass. `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` could not run
locally because it builds the Rust runner first and `cargo` is not
installed on this machine; the TypeScript step it wraps is the command
above.
- `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/company.test.ts` — 6
passed
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` — 90
passed
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/attachment-types.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/assets.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — 165 passed (the
human-readable limit messages)
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-branding-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/invite-summary-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openclaw-invite-prompt-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/companies-route-cross-company-authz.test.ts` — all
passed
- `npx vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-delete.test.ts` — 27 passed
- `npx vitest run` in `ui/` — 4425 passed, 1 pre-existing failure
unrelated to this change (`OnboardingWizard.test.tsx` "renders instead
of throwing when the browser denies storage access", which also fails on
`master`)
- `npx vitest run` in `server/` — see the note below
- `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` — no new violations; the only
reported violations are the pre-existing `PillGuy.tsx` ones present on
`master`
New tests added:
- `packages/shared/src/validators/company.test.ts` — the create and
update schemas strip the retired keys, the strict branding schema
rejects `brandColor`, and the portability manifest schema accepts a
legacy entry carrying both keys and drops them.
- `server/src/__tests__/company-branding-route.test.ts` — `PATCH
/api/companies/{companyId}/branding` returns 400 for `brandColor` and
does not call the company service.
- `server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` — a legacy package
that declares `brandColor` and `attachmentMaxBytes` imports
successfully, and neither key reaches `companies.create`.
- `server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts` — the effective
task attachment limit is the deployment cap, and the route no longer
loads the company to size an upload.
- `server/src/__tests__/attachment-types.test.ts` —
`formatAttachmentSize()` renders the default cap as `10 MB`, keeps one
decimal place for fractional sizes and drops a trailing `.0`, falls back
to KB and bytes for small caps, steps up to GB, and never emits `NaN`
for a degenerate input.
- `server/src/__tests__/assets.test.ts` — the asset-image and
company-logo routes both return the human-readable limit message on an
over-cap upload.
## Merge with master
`master` moved while this was open, and the merge needed two
resolutions:
- **`ui/src/pages/CompanySettings.tsx`.** #12243 reworded the
user-facing
copy from "company" to "organization", and that rewording landed inside
the "Brand color" and "Attachment size limit" hints — the two fields
this change deletes. Both fields are removed, so the conflicted block is
dropped whole. The Logo field and every other copy change from #12243
are
kept.
- **Migration renumbered 0228 -> 0229.** #12307 landed
`0228_nasty_grim_reaper`, so this migration is now
`0229_drop_company_brand_color_and_attachment_max_bytes`. Its snapshot
is
rebuilt from master's `0228_snapshot.json` with only the two `companies`
columns removed, and `meta/_journal.json` is master's journal plus a
single `idx: 229` entry. `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db
check:migrations`
passes.
The snapshot was rebuilt by hand rather than taken from `drizzle-kit
generate`, because master's `0228_snapshot.json` has drifted from
master's
own schema: `issue_question_response_deliveries.error_count` is created
by
master's 0228 SQL but missing from its snapshot, and the snapshot still
carries `decision_archive_notification_outbox.error_count`. Regenerating
folds both into this migration, and the resulting `ADD COLUMN
error_count`
would fail on a fresh database where master's 0228 already created that
column. Rebuilding from master's snapshot leaves that drift exactly
where
it is and keeps this migration to the two column drops. The drift is
pre-existing on master and is not addressed here.
## Risks
- **The migration is a destructive column drop.**
`0229_drop_company_brand_color_and_attachment_max_bytes.sql` removes
`companies.brand_color` and `companies.attachment_max_bytes`. It is safe
because both features are removed in the same change and nothing reads
either column after it. The statements use `DROP COLUMN IF EXISTS`,
matching the convention of the recent drop migrations in this
repository. The drop is not reversible: a downgrade after this migration
loses any stored values.
- **Stored brand colors are lost.** A company that had set a color now
renders the name-derived icon hue that every company without a color
already used. No other surface changes, and an uploaded logo still
overrides the icon.
- **API response shape narrows.** `brandColor` and `attachmentMaxBytes`
leave the company payloads, and `companyBrandColor` leaves the invite
summary payload. A client reading those fields now sees `undefined`. The
bundled UI and CLI are updated in this change.
- **Legacy imports are covered.** Packages exported by older versions
still carry both keys. The manifest schema is non-strict, so the keys
are stripped rather than rejected, and a test locks that in.
- **The over-limit message strings changed.** Anything matching on the
old `... exceeds N bytes` text — a test, a script, or a client that
string-matches `body.error` — needs updating. The status codes (422) and
response shapes are unchanged, so structured clients are unaffected.
- **Attachment limits can only widen.** A deployment that had lowered a
company below the deployment cap now allows uploads up to the cap for
that company. Lower `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` if a smaller
ceiling is needed.
- **Storybook visual baselines shift** for the `CompanyPatternIcon`
matrix story, because those fixtures had brand colors. That workflow
runs only on a PR labeled `storybook-visual`, so it does not gate this
PR; regenerate the baselines if the label is added.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic), Claude Opus, agentic tool use via Claude 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 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
|
||
|
Devin Foley
|
8f195c2f49 |
Let operators supply defaults for selected instance settings (#12285)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Hosting operators (a managed cloud, an internal shared server) tune
the settings surface with `PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS`, but hiding a
control never changes its value
> - An instance whose stored feedback-sharing preference is still the
schema default ("prompt") keeps prompting users even when the operator
hid the control, leaving them no way to answer
> - More generally, operators have no supported way to change what a
setting defaults to without patching code
> - This pull request adds `PAPERCLIP_SETTING_DEFAULTS`, a generic
operator-supplied read-time default overlay for registry-listed general
settings
> - The benefit is that any hosting operator can pair "hide the control"
with "default the value", while explicit user choices and self-hosted
stock behavior stay untouched
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists; following the enhancement template:
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Hosting operators need to supply the default value of selected instance
settings (first: `feedbackDataSharingPreference`) via configuration,
without patching code and without a hard-coded, opinionated constant in
the product.
**Subsystem affected**
Server (instance-settings service, feedback service, boot) and
`packages/shared` (settings schemas).
**Current behavior**
Setting defaults are fixed in the shared zod schemas.
`PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS` can hide the feedback-sharing control and
floor writes, but the stored value stays "prompt", so issue-chat
surfaces keep prompting with no way to answer.
**Proposed behavior**
`PAPERCLIP_SETTING_DEFAULTS` takes a JSON object validated against a
shared registry of defaultable fields. The operator value substitutes
for the schema default at read time: a field whose effective value is
still the schema default resolves to the operator value; an explicit
non-default user choice always wins. Never persisted; unsetting the
variable restores stock behavior. Malformed JSON or an invalid value for
a known field refuses startup (fail closed); unknown field names warn
and are ignored (mixed-version fleet safe).
**Reason and benefit**
Any hosting operator can pair "hide the control" with "default the
value" without forking the product. Explicit user choices and
self-hosted stock behavior stay untouched.
**Breaking changes**
None. With the variable unset, every read path is byte-identical to
before.
## What Changed
- New `packages/shared/src/setting-defaults.ts`:
`SETTING_DEFAULTS_ENV_KEY`, `DEFAULTABLE_GENERAL_SETTINGS` registry
(currently `feedbackDataSharingPreference`), `parseSettingDefaults`
(fail-closed for policy content, warn-ignore unknown fields),
`applyOperatorGeneralDefaults` (pure read-time overlay),
`stripOperatorGeneralEchoes` (persist-time echo strip, see below),
re-exported from the package index.
- New `server/src/services/setting-defaults.ts`: parse-once accessor
mirroring `settings-visibility.ts`.
- `server/src/services/instance-settings.ts`: `toGeneralView` applies
the overlay in `get`/`getGeneral`/update responses; persisted writes
never carry operator values. Because general-settings writes materialize
every field, a stored schema-default value is treated as unchosen —
deliberate, documented, and covered by tests.
- `server/src/services/feedback.ts`: the preference-persistence branch
now checks the effective (overlaid) preference, so a stray prompt answer
cannot overwrite an operator default; its local normalize fallback now
returns full schema defaults.
- `server/src/index.ts`: boot-time fail-fast parse with a log line
naming the defaulted settings, mirroring the managed-config posture.
- The hidden-settings write floor (`assertNoHiddenSettingChanges`) keeps
comparing against effective values, so clients echoing a full GET
response keep working. To keep the overlay strictly read-time,
`updateGeneral` strips such echoes at persist time: a write of the
operator value over a field whose stored value is still the schema
default (unchosen) maps back to the schema default, so an echo cannot
promote the operator value into an explicit stored choice and later
changes to (or removal of) `PAPERCLIP_SETTING_DEFAULTS` still take
effect. A write of any other value, or over an explicit stored choice,
persists as given.
- Docs: `PAPERCLIP_SETTING_DEFAULTS` row + "Operator setting defaults"
section in `docs/deploy/environment-variables.md`.
- Tests: `packages/shared/src/setting-defaults.test.ts` (parse matrix,
overlay precedence, echo-strip matrix, immutability) and
`server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-operator-defaults.test.ts`
(accessor, substitution, explicit-choice wins, unset identity,
never-persisted, full-GET echo stays unchosen, explicit non-default
write persists).
## Verification
- `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/setting-defaults.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-operator-defaults.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-managed-overlay.test.ts` — 33
tests passing.
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts` — 57 passing;
`npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/feedback-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-feedback-routes.test.ts` — 18 passing.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` and `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck` — clean.
## Risks
- Low. With the variable unset every read path is byte-identical to
before (identity overlay, covered by tests). The overlay is read-time
only and never persisted, so no migration and no data risk. Fail-closed
parsing means a bad policy value is a loud boot failure rather than
silent drift — consistent with the existing managed-config contract.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic), model id `claude-fable-5`, extended thinking,
agentic tool use via Claude 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
|
||
|
Devin Foley
|
e34ed9801b |
Let operators hide the Provider vaults and Proposals tabs (#12284)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Hosting operators (a managed cloud, an internal shared server) tune the settings surface with `PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS`, which today hides whole pages > - The Secrets page bundles four tabs, and two of them — Provider vaults and Proposals — do not apply to deployments where the operator provisions provider credentials itself > - Hiding the whole Secrets page is too coarse: the Secrets and My secrets tabs stay essential everywhere > - This pull request adds per-tab visibility keys (`company.secrets.vaults`, `company.secrets.proposals`) as a new company-section registry group > - The benefit is that any hosting operator can trim the Secrets page to what fits their deployment, with self-hosted behavior unchanged by default ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists; following the enhancement template: **What existing behavior does this improve?** `PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS` can hide the whole Secrets page (`company.secrets`) but not individual tabs. Operators of managed deployments need to hide the Provider vaults and Proposals tabs while keeping the rest of the page. **Subsystem affected** Settings visibility (`packages/shared/src/settings-visibility.ts`) and the Secrets page UI (`ui/src/pages/Secrets.tsx`). **Current behavior** The Secrets page always renders all four tabs (Secrets, My secrets, Provider vaults, Proposals), polls pending proposals for the badge, and offers "manage vaults" affordances that jump to the vaults tab. **Proposed behavior** Two new registry keys, `company.secrets.vaults` and `company.secrets.proposals`, hide the corresponding tab: the tab-bar entry disappears, an active hidden tab snaps back to Secrets, the manage-vaults affordances are suppressed, and the pending-proposals poll stops. UI visibility only — the provider-config and proposal APIs stay live for agents and integrations, matching the existing `company.*` precedent. Nothing changes when the variable is unset. **Reason and benefit** Any hosting operator (a managed cloud, an internal shared server) can trim the Secrets page to what fits their deployment — for example when the operator provisions provider credentials itself, so the vault and proposal flows do not apply — without losing the Secrets and My secrets tabs, which stay essential everywhere. **Breaking changes** None. With `PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS` unset (or set to existing keys only) nothing changes; older app versions receiving the new keys ignore them with a warning by design. ## What Changed - `packages/shared/src/settings-visibility.ts`: new `HIDEABLE_COMPANY_SECTIONS` group (`company.secrets.vaults`, `company.secrets.proposals`), `HideableCompanySection` type, `hidesCompanySection()` helper, wired into `HideableSettingKey` / `HIDEABLE_SETTING_KEYS`, re-exported from the package index. - `ui/src/pages/Secrets.tsx`: tab-bar filtering, hidden-tab snap-back effect, gated pending-proposals query, conditional `onManageVaults` on both the import button and dialog (the button's "AWS vault disabled — manage" affordance renders nothing when vaults are hidden), hidden `TabsContent` blocks. - Docs: new bullet in `docs/deploy/environment-variables.md` under "Hiding settings surfaces". - Tests: registry membership/parse cases in `settings-visibility.test.ts`; new render cases in `Secrets.render.test.tsx` (hidden tabs absent + proposals poll skipped; default render keeps both tabs and the poll). ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/settings-visibility.test.ts ui/src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx` — 43 tests passing. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean. ## Risks - Low. Nothing changes with `PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS` unset (covered by the default-render test). The keys are UI-visibility only, so agent/integration API access is unaffected. Older app versions receiving the new keys ignore them with a warning by design. ## Model Used Claude (Anthropic), model id `claude-fable-5`, extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
325041cb00 |
fix(assets): accept identity-provider characters in image upload namespaces (#12288)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Humans oversee those agents in teams, so each person has a login and
a profile with an avatar
> - Avatars, logos and pasted images all go to one asset upload API,
which files each object under a namespace
> - The avatar namespace embeds the user id, and a deployment can take
user ids from an external identity layer, where a subject often holds
":", "|", "." or "@"
> - But the namespace validator accepted only letters, numbers, "/", "_"
and "-", so those users got a 400 "Invalid image metadata" error and
could not set a profile photo
> - This pull request widens the accepted characters, rejects "." and
".." path segments with a clear message, and cleans the namespace in the
upload client
> - The benefit is that profile photo upload works for every user, and a
namespace the API refuses now returns a message that says what is wrong
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue or open pull request covers this. I searched the issue
and pull request lists for "avatar upload", "profile photo", "Invalid
image metadata" and "asset namespace" and found no duplicate. The bug
report follows.
**What happened?**
Profile photo upload fails. `ui/src/pages/ProfileSettings.tsx` sends the
namespace `profiles/${user.id}` to `POST
/api/companies/:companyId/assets/images`. When the user id comes from an
external identity layer it can contain ":", "|", "." or "@" — for
example `oidc:example|jane.example@example.com`.
`createAssetImageMetadataSchema` in
`packages/shared/src/validators/asset.ts` accepted only
`/^[a-zA-Z0-9\/_-]+$/`, so the route returned 400 "Invalid image
metadata" (`server/src/routes/assets.ts`). The image bytes were never
the problem, but the message pointed at the image, so the toast gave the
user nothing to act on.
A second case has the same cause. The agent instructions editor in
`ui/src/pages/AgentDetail.tsx` builds a namespace that ends with a
filename, such as `agents/<id>/instructions/SKILL.md`. The "." in the
filename also failed the check.
**Expected behavior**
A profile photo uploads for any user id the app itself issues, and an
image pasted into the agent instructions editor uploads for any
instruction filename. A namespace the API does refuse returns a message
that names the field and states the rule.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run Paperclip with an external identity provider, so `user.id` holds
an OIDC subject such as `oidc:example|jane.example@example.com`.
2. Open Settings, then Profile.
3. Choose an avatar image.
4. The upload fails and the page shows "Invalid image metadata".
Or, with no identity provider:
1. Open an agent, then the instructions editor, and select a file whose
name contains a "." such as `SKILL.md`.
2. Paste an image into the editor.
3. The upload fails with the same error.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
Dotta
|
67f9867bc6 |
fix(interactions): deliver question answers durably (#12307)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents can pause a task and ask the user structured questions. > - The answer is durable in the issue interaction, but delivery to the next run is not durable. > - A process restart can therefore leave an answered interaction without a continuation attempt. > - Native runners also need a provider-neutral question contract before the task page can consume native events safely. > - This pull request adds a content-free delivery outbox and an optional native steering seam. > - Direct adapters keep their existing heartbeat continuation path. > - The benefit is reliable answer delivery without changing runtime selection or task-page behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12202. This pull request replaces the question-delivery foundation from that stale task-thread pull request. The task-thread projection will follow in a smaller pull request. **What happened?** Question answers were stored in the issue interaction. The server then made one in-memory continuation wake. A server stop between those operations could leave the answer stored but not delivered. The combined native task-thread pull request also made this behavior hard to review separately from UI changes. **Expected behavior** The answer and its delivery receipt must commit in one transaction. The server must retry pending receipts after a restart. Existing direct adapters must keep the current wake path. A native runtime may use the optional steering seam, but this pull request does not enable native steering in production. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an `ask_user_questions` interaction. 2. Answer the interaction. 3. Stop the server before the continuation wake completes. 4. Start the server again. 5. On current master, no durable record tells the server to retry the answer delivery. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` at `4d82f5eae`. ## What Changed - Add the `issue_question_response_deliveries` table and migration. - Store only routing state, a correlation ID, and a payload digest in the delivery row. The answer remains in the existing interaction result. - Commit an answered interaction and its pending delivery row in one transaction. - Add bounded claims, retry recovery, cumulative terminal state, and content-free activity records. - Keep every built-in direct adapter and external adapter on the existing heartbeat wake path. - Add an optional native steering seam. No production caller supplies that seam in this pull request. - Retain the provider-neutral `paperclip.question_set.v1` presentation on recovered interactions. - Run delivery immediately after an answer and sweep pending rows at startup and on the existing server interval. - Add focused database, service, route, startup, adapter-matrix, digest, and duplicate-delivery tests. ## Compatibility Boundary - This pull request does not change adapter selection. - This pull request does not start runnerd. - This pull request does not create native run records. - Direct adapters never call the native steering seam. - The existing interaction result stays authoritative for answer content. - The migration is additive and does not rewrite existing rows. - This pull request has no UI, dependency, workflow, package-manager, or lockfile changes. - The diff has 19 files. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/question-response-delivery.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` — 4 files and 120 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all applicable workspaces. This includes Cargo format and check, protocol drift checks, and migration safety. - `pnpm build` — passed. This includes the Rust release binary, server build, and UI production build. - `git diff --check` — passed. - Secret patterns were not present in the changed text files. - The repository token gates currently report violations from unchanged files on `master`. This pull request does not change those files. ## Risks The main risk is routing a direct-adapter answer into a native session. The service checks the persisted runtime mode, and the adapter matrix proves that all direct adapters use only the existing wake path. The new table is additive. It has foreign keys, unique correlation constraints, bounded attempts, and status checks. Activity records omit question and answer content. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The client does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes:` / `Closes:` / `Refs:` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket ID or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the affected tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have documented the new contracts and compatibility boundary - [x] I have considered and documented compatibility and security 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 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
9c03443c48 |
feat: hideable company settings pages, with import floored on cloud-managed instances (#12199)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The app can run self-hosted or as a cloud-managed instance, where a
hosting platform provisions the instance with its company already
materialized (the existing `isCloudManagedInstance()` predicate and
`cloud_managed` floors)
> - The company Import/Export surface lets an operator materialize whole
companies from an export bundle; on a cloud-managed instance this
bypasses the existing `cloud_managed` company-creation floor and
conflicts with platform-owned provisioning
> - Importing should be disabled on cloud-managed instances, while
export stays open as the data-portability escape hatch
> - This pull request floors every import route with 403
`code=cloud_managed` on cloud-managed instances and hides the Import UI
there, using the existing predicate and the established floor pattern
> - It also extends the operator-hidden settings registry with keys for
every top-level company settings page, so a hosting operator can hide
any of them with `PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS` alone next time
> - The benefit is one consistent managed-instance policy: cloud-managed
instances cannot import companies, self-hosted installs keep the full
import surface unchanged
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists; the underlying problem follows the enhancement
template.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The company import surface (`/api/companies/import*`,
`/api/companies/:companyId/imports/*`) and its UI entry points on
cloud-managed instances.
**Subsystem affected**
Server routes (`server/src/routes/companies.ts`) and UI navigation/pages
(settings sidebar, settings tabs, org chart, `/company/import` route).
**Current behavior**
A cloud-managed instance floors direct company creation (`POST
/api/companies` answers 403 `cloud_managed`), but the import routes
still accept company bundles, so an import can materialize companies the
hosting platform did not provision. The UI offers Import entry points
that lead to a surface that is not available on cloud-managed instances.
**Proposed behavior**
On instances where `isCloudManagedInstance()` is true, every import
route answers 403 `code=cloud_managed` before auth and body work, and
the Import UI (sidebar entry, settings tab, org-chart button,
`/company/import` route) is hidden or redirected. Export remains fully
available. Self-hosted instances are unchanged.
**Reason and benefit**
Cloud-managed instances keep one consistent provisioning authority, and
users do not see an Import surface that dead-ends in a 403.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/companies.ts`: a router-level floor mounted at the
`/import` and `/:companyId/imports` prefixes. It covers the single-shot
upload, preview, job polling, chunked transfer
declare/part-upload/status/preview/apply, and the agent-safe per-company
import routes. It throws `forbidden(..., { code: "cloud_managed" })` on
cloud-managed instances, or `403 settings_operator_managed` when the
operator hides `company.import` — both before auth and body validation,
mirroring the company-creation floor.
- `packages/shared/src/settings-visibility.ts`: new
`HIDEABLE_COMPANY_PAGES` registry group — `company.members`,
`company.invites`, `company.secrets`, `company.export`, `company.import`
— with a `hidesCompanyPage` helper. The company General page stays
non-hideable (settings root). `company.import` floors its API; the other
keys are UI-visibility only, as documented in the registry, so
membership/invite/secret/export APIs stay live for agents.
- `ui/src/components/CloudManagedPageGate.tsx` (new): route gate that
redirects cloud-managed instances to `/company/settings`, modeled on
`HiddenSettingsPageGate`.
- `ui/src/App.tsx`: wraps the `company/import` route in
`CloudManagedPageGate`.
- `ui/src/components/CompanySettingsSidebar.tsx`,
`ui/src/components/access/CompanySettingsNav.tsx`,
`ui/src/pages/OrgChart.tsx`: hide the Import entry points when
`useCloudInstance()` reports a managed instance, and honor the new
`company.*` hidden-settings keys for every company page entry (sidebar
item, tab, org-chart buttons).
- `ui/src/App.tsx`: `HiddenSettingsPageGate` route gates for the members
(incl. the legacy access route), invites, secrets, export, and import
pages under their `company.*` keys.
- `docs/deploy/environment-variables.md`: documents the new keys and
their semantics; the CLI and board-operator guides note that import is
unavailable on cloud-managed instances.
- Tests: new `server/src/__tests__/company-import-cloud-floor.test.ts`
and `ui/src/components/CloudManagedPageGate.test.tsx`, registry cases in
`packages/shared/src/settings-visibility.test.ts`, plus cloud and
hidden-key cases in the sidebar, settings-nav, and org-chart suites.
## Verification
- TypeScript typechecks pass for every workspace package (`tsc` in
shared, server, ui; the runner's Rust leg needs a local cargo toolchain
and is covered by CI).
- `pnpm test` on this branch fails only in 9 files that also fail on a
clean `origin/master` checkout on the same machine
(environment-dependent suites: live-listener probes,
workspace/native-runtime spawns, skill materialization). Zero
branch-only failures against that baseline; every suite touched by this
change passes.
- `server/src/__tests__/company-import-cloud-floor.test.ts` asserts:
every import route answers 403 `cloud_managed` under the server-token
signal; the managed-config signal alone also floors; every import route
answers 403 `settings_operator_managed` when `company.import` is hidden;
hiding other company pages leaves import open; the floor applies before
auth and body validation; export stays open on cloud-managed instances;
self-hosted import preview and job polling still work.
- `packages/shared/src/settings-visibility.test.ts` covers the new
`company.*` keys and `hidesCompanyPage`.
- UI suites assert the Import tab, sidebar entry, and org-chart button
disappear on a cloud-managed instance while Export stays, that
`/company/import` redirects through the gate, and that the `company.*`
keys hide their sidebar entries and tabs.
## Risks
- Low risk for self-hosted installs: the floor is inert unless a cloud
signal (`PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_TENANT_SERVER_TOKEN` or
`PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`) is present, and the self-hosted paths are
regression-tested.
- On cloud-managed instances this is a deliberate behavioral removal:
import (including agent-driven safe imports and resumable transfers)
stops working the moment an instance runs this build. In-flight chunked
transfers on such instances cannot be applied afterward; they answer
403.
- CLI import commands against a cloud-managed instance now fail with the
`cloud_managed` error; the message names the reason.
- The new `company.*` keys change nothing unless an operator sets them:
`PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS` unset keeps behavior identical, and older
images ignore unknown keys by design. The four non-import company keys
hide UI only; their APIs stay live, which the registry documents
explicitly.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — agentic
coding session with tool use (code search, editing, local test
execution).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4d2af732ae |
feat(runner): add native persistence contracts (#12169)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs need durable records so Paperclip can explain results and final status changes. > - The current heartbeat tables support direct adapters, but they do not model native runner evidence. > - The runner transport and server coordinator must share a strict finalization contract before they write production data. > - This pull request adds that contract and its additive database boundary. > - It does not select the Paperclip Runner or change any existing adapter execution path. > - The benefit is a reviewable persistence layer that preserves all current behavior and supports later guarded integration. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11962 Refs #12129 ## What Changed - Add native run result, finalization, completion, assessment, status decision, and status effect tables. - Add inert native metadata to heartbeat runs and events. Keep `legacy` as the default runtime mode. - Bind each evidence relationship to one company, issue, run, contract, result, assessment, and decision with composite constraints. - Add a strict `paperclip.native_finalization.v1` shared type and validator. - Preserve database functions, triggers, and the unique indexes required by foreign keys in JavaScript backups. - Add migration, backup, mixed-owner denial, validator, and direct-adapter compatibility tests. - Document the new records and their ownership rules. ## Verification - Run `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Run `pnpm build`. - Run `pnpm db:generate`. The schema output and migration safety checks remain current. - Run `PAPERCLIP_PSQL_PATH=/Applications/Postgres.app/Contents/Versions/latest/bin/psql pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/native-finalization.test.ts packages/db/src/client.test.ts packages/db/src/backup-lib.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`. All 52 tests pass. - The full local `pnpm test:run` run completed 4,688 tests. It found 30 existing macOS test-environment failures. A serial rerun with the canonical `/private/tmp` path reduced those failures to six existing listener-diagnostics and skill-browser cases. None of those suites use files in this change. - The full Linux GitHub Actions matrix passes. This includes all general-server, serialized-server, workspace, browser, build, typecheck, canary, and aggregate verification jobs. - Greptile passes at 5/5. Contributor trust, Superagent, Socket, and Snyk pass with no finding from this change. - Storybook visual regression skips by path because this pull request has no UI or Storybook change. - Confirm that the diff contains 25 files. Confirm that it contains no workflow or `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes. ## Risks - The migration adds tables, columns, indexes, a function, a trigger, and ownership constraints. It does not remove or rename existing data. - Composite foreign keys reject mixed-company, mixed-issue, and mixed-run evidence even when each ID exists. - The status-version trigger runs only when an issue status changes. Backup tests confirm that restore retains this trigger and its dependencies. - Native source identifiers are unique when present. Legacy event rows remain unchanged. - This change does not add a unique run sequence constraint. The later native writer must allocate its sequence atomically before that invariant can be safe. - Existing adapters keep their current execution and finalization paths. New heartbeat runs default to `legacy` mode. > 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 with GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
a14e51d592 |
refactor(environment): classify environment capabilities from static driver definitions (#12045)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Environment runtime drivers provide workspace, lease, and custom image behavior > - Runtime code used driver identity checks and several capability-specific members > - These checks spread capability rules across the runtime and made new drivers harder to verify > - This pull request adds one general capability classifier and one static driver support table > - The benefit is one fail-closed capability model that keeps current behavior and supports future drivers ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Environment runtime capability checks for workspace realization, custom images, lease capabilities, and duplex authorization. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) **Current behavior** The runtime selects several capability paths from driver identity and separate capability members. Custom image gates also trust provider declarations without checking every matching live worker method. **Proposed behavior** The runtime uses one general capability classifier and one static support table. Custom image gates require both the provider declaration and every matching live worker method. The public capability names remain unchanged. **Reason and benefit** The change keeps capability rules in one place. It removes identity conditions from runtime consumers and makes unsupported drivers fail closed. **Breaking changes** None. The public names sandboxCapabilities, sandboxProviders, and EffectiveSandboxCapabilities remain available. ## What Changed - Add classifyEnvironmentCapabilities and static support definitions for all four driver families. - Add resolveCapabilities to every environment runtime driver. - Move driver traits into environment-driver-traits.ts and migrate runtime consumers. - Require provider declarations and matching live worker methods for all custom image gates. - Migrate duplex authorization to the general resolver and remove the dead sandbox-only member. - Delete the unused resolveEffectiveSandboxCapabilities wrapper and update its test. ## Verification - pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck - pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-capability-contract.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts — 92 tests pass - pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-driver-traits.test.ts server/src/__tests__/general-capability-classifier.test.ts — 12 tests pass - pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-capabilities.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-duplex.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-duplex-kill-switch.test.ts — 66 tests pass ## Risks The main risk is a capability gate that denies a valid driver or permits an invalid driver. The static support matrix, live worker method checks, and regression tests reduce this risk. No database, public API, or published type name changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and code execution. The deployment does not provide a separate context-window value. ## 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 (for example, docs/... or 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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
c62bb4b16b |
feat: environment delete with agent reassignment and consented sandbox destroy (#12053)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Environments define where agent runs execute: local, SSH, or provider sandboxes > - Operators can create and edit environments, but the UI has no way to delete one > - The server already exposes `DELETE /environments/:id` and a delete-blast-radius preflight, but no UI consumes them, and a delete blocked by reusable sandbox leases gives the operator no path forward > - This pull request adds the delete flow to the environment configuration page: a preflight-driven modal that reassigns dependent agents, names the workspaces that hold blocking sandbox leases, and can destroy those sandboxes with explicit consent > - The benefit is that operators can retire stale environments from the UI without database surgery, and dependent agents move to a chosen replacement instead of silently falling back ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8554 Refs #11124 **Subsystem affected** Environments (server routes, environment runtime service, and the environment settings UI). **Problem or motivation** The environment configuration page has no delete control. The server delete endpoint exists, but nothing in the UI calls it. When reusable sandbox leases block a delete, the 409 error names no owner, so the operator cannot find the blocking workspace. Agents that use the environment as their default lose it silently through the FK `on delete set null`. **Proposed solution** Add a delete button with a confirmation modal on the environment edit page. The modal reads the delete-blast-radius preflight. It offers a dropdown to reassign dependent agents to another environment before the delete. It lists each workspace that holds a blocking reusable sandbox lease, with a link. When those leases are the only blocker, the confirm button destroys the sandboxes inline (`?destroyReusableSandboxLeases=true`) and then deletes. A failed teardown falls back to `pending_cleanup` for the sweep, so no sandbox is orphaned. ## What Changed - `ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.tsx`: delete button on the edit page header, confirmation modal with agent reassignment select, lease-holder list, impact notes, and a consent-labeled destroy-and-delete action - `ui/src/api/environments.ts`: `deleteBlastRadius` and `remove` client methods; `remove` takes an optional `destroyReusableSandboxLeases` flag - `server/src/routes/environments.ts`: `DELETE /environments/:id` accepts `?destroyReusableSandboxLeases=true`; it destroys the environment's reusable sandbox leases first, but only when those leases are the sole delete blocker, then re-checks the blast radius before it deletes - `server/src/services/environment-runtime.ts`: new `destroyReusableSandboxLeasesForEnvironment` — destroys every reusable sandbox lease an environment still owns while the environment config (provider credentials) is still available - `server/src/services/environments.ts`: the delete blast radius now returns `reusableSandboxLeaseHolders` (lease id, workspace, issue) so clients can name what blocks a delete - `packages/shared/src/types/environment.ts`: `EnvironmentDeleteReusableLeaseHolder` type on the blast radius - Tests: route gating for the consent flag (destroy runs, mixed-blocker rejection, surviving-lease rejection), runtime destroy scoped to an environment, blast-radius holder join, and UI tests for the reassignment flow, holder links, and the consent button ## Verification - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx` - Manual: open Settings → Environments → edit an environment. The trash icon opens the modal. With agents on the environment, pick a reassignment target and confirm; agents move and the environment deletes. With reusable sandbox leases, the modal names the holding workspaces and the confirm button reads "Destroy N sandboxes and delete". ## Risks - The consented path destroys provider sandboxes. It runs only when reusable leases are the sole blocker, so a delete that would still be rejected never destroys anything. A failed teardown routes to `pending_cleanup` and the delete stays blocked until the sweep resolves it. - Agent reassignment issues one PATCH per agent from the client. A mid-sequence failure leaves some agents reassigned; the reassignments are valid on their own and the UI refreshes to the actual state. - Hard blockers (managed local, instance default, pending cleanup) keep the existing 409 behavior and disable the confirm button. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic) — Fable 5, model id `claude-fable-5`, extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Code CLI. ## 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
db4defdfbf |
feat: operator-configurable settings visibility via PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS (#11823)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The instance settings surface (Access, Plugins, Adapters, General,
Experimental) assumes the person at the keyboard operates the whole
instance
> - Operators who host Paperclip for others — a managed cloud or an
internal shared server — expose settings pages and toggles that do not
apply to their deployment, and the related mutation APIs stay open
> - A hosted tenant can open Plugins or Adapters, try an action, and hit
a confusing failure, because only a few hardcoded platform floors exist
> - This pull request adds a generic, operator-configured visibility
mechanism: one env var hides declared settings surfaces in the UI and
floors their mutation routes with a stable 403 code
> - The benefit is a clean hosted-tenant settings surface for any
operator, with zero behavior change for normal self-hosted instances
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Instance settings (server routes and UI), the shared settings registry
in `packages/shared`, and the `/api/health` bootstrap payload.
**Problem or motivation**
An operator who hosts Paperclip for other people cannot hide settings
surfaces that the platform manages. Tenants see Access, Plugins, and
Adapters pages, backup retention, and host-level experimental toggles
that do nothing useful for them. The mutation APIs behind these surfaces
also stay open, so a tenant admin can attempt actions the platform must
control. ROADMAP.md names a cleaner shared deployment story as a goal
("Teams should be able to run the same product in hosted or semi-hosted
environments without changing the mental model").
**Proposed solution**
Add a declarative registry of hideable settings surfaces and one env
var, `PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS`. The server parses the list at boot,
reports it on `/api/health`, and rejects value-changing writes to hidden
surfaces with a stable `settings_operator_managed` 403 code. The UI
reads the list from the health payload and removes the hidden pages,
sections, and toggles from navigation, routes, and page content. Unknown
keys warn and are ignored, so one list can roll across a fleet with
mixed app versions. With the variable unset, behavior is byte-identical
to today.
**Alternatives considered**
- Hardcode the hidden set for cloud instances in this repo: rejected,
because each hosting operator needs a different policy, and policy does
not belong in shared code.
- Deliver the hidden set through the managed-config document: rejected,
because that channel is cloud-specific and fail-closed on unknown
fields; a plain env var works for any operator, including self-hosted
shared servers.
- Lock the controls with a badge instead of hiding them: rejected for
these surfaces, because they are meaningless to tenants, not merely
platform-controlled; the existing managed-overlay lock stays the right
tool for controlled flags.
**Roadmap alignment**
Supports the "shared deployment story" item in ROADMAP.md: hosted and
semi-hosted deployments keep the same product with a settings surface
that matches what the tenant can actually do.
## What Changed
- New `packages/shared/src/settings-visibility.ts`: registry of hideable
surfaces (every instance settings page — profile, environments, access,
heartbeats, experimental, plugins, adapters; every Instance → General
section; every experimental flag as `instance.experimental.<key>`), the
`PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS` parser, and the `settings_operator_managed`
error code. The General page stays visible as the settings root and
redirect target.
- New `server/src/services/settings-visibility.ts`: parse-once accessor;
unknown keys log one warning and are ignored.
- `/api/health` reports `hiddenSettings` on every response shape; the
field is omitted when nothing is hidden.
- Server floors on hidden surfaces, with same-value echo tolerance (the
`executionMode` precedent): field-backed general sections and
experimental keys reject value-changing PATCHes, and hiding the whole
Experimental page floors every toggle; plugin lifecycle and config
writes, adapter management writes, and the Access admin routes (reads
included) return 403 `settings_operator_managed`. Reads the app itself
needs (plugin `ui-contributions`, adapter metadata, plugin job trigger)
stay open. Pages without instance-scoped mutation routes are hidden in
the UI only.
- UI: new `useHiddenSettings` hook and `HiddenSettingsPageGate` route
gate (hidden pages redirect to the settings root); the settings sidebar
and tab bar drop hidden entries; remembered settings paths remap to the
default page; `InstanceGeneralSettings` skips hidden sections; every
`ExperimentalToggleCard` now carries its flag key and renders nothing
when hidden.
- Removed the dead `InstanceSidebar` component (referenced only by its
own test).
- Docs: `docs/deploy/environment-variables.md` documents the variable
and the key registry.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run` over the new and extended suites: shared registry
and parser, representative floor tests per route class (changed-value
403, same-value echo 200, unset env 200, page-level Experimental
hiding), the health field, the route gate, nav filtering, and
section/card hiding with one hidden example per surface kind — 168 tests
pass.
- Full root `pnpm typecheck` passes.
- Manual: booted a server with the variable set. `/api/health` lists the
keys; an unknown key logs one warning and the server boots; hidden pages
redirect; hidden sections and cards do not render; hidden-field PATCH
returns 403 with `details.code = "settings_operator_managed"`; a
same-value echo returns 200. Unset the variable: the full settings
surface returns and responses are byte-identical to master.
## Risks
- Low risk for self-hosted instances: with the variable unset, the
hidden set is empty, the health field is omitted, and no floor
activates.
- Flooring plugin config writes assumes hosted deployments configure
plugins through the platform. If a future bundled plugin needs
tenant-entered config, the floor needs a narrow carve-out.
- Hidden-key floors tolerate same-value echoes, so API clients that
round-trip full GET responses keep working.
- Hiding a toggle does not change its value; operators pair hiding with
the desired default where the value matters.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`) with extended thinking and
agentic tool use, driven through the Claude Code CLI (file edits, test
execution, and live-server verification loops).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
|
||
|
Michael Nguyen
|
0fa318b8da | feat(artifacts): bridge Markdown work products into the document review surface (#11822) | ||
|
|
cb0009b097 |
fix: preserve recovery retries across restarts (#11817)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The control plane must keep each active issue on a clear execution or recovery path. > - A missing issue disposition can require more than one bounded repair attempt. > - A server restart could lose that repair path or move source ownership to the recovery owner. > - A parked or expired retry could also make the user interface show a false healthy state. > - Concurrent recovery loops must not schedule the same repair attempt twice. > - This pull request keeps retry state durable, makes scheduling atomic, and keeps source ownership stable. > - The benefit is that recovery continues after a restart and operators see the correct state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A run that ended without a valid issue disposition could lose its repair path after a server restart. Manager recovery could also change the source owner. In addition, a parked or expired retry could make the issue look healthy when no active work existed. Concurrent reconciliation could also schedule the same repair attempt twice. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must keep bounded source and manager repair attempts across restarts. Recovery ownership must stay separate from source issue ownership. The server and user interface must report only a live retry as active work. Each repair attempt must be scheduled at most once per company. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start an agent run on an issue. 2. End the run without a valid issue disposition. 3. Let the first repair attempt schedule a retry. 4. Restart the server, let the retry time pass without a live run, or start two reconciliation loops together. 5. Observe that the repair path can stop, the issue can show a false healthy state, or duplicate retries can be created. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem existed on `master` before candidate head `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. **Deployment mode** The problem affects self-hosted servers and local builds that use automatic recovery. ## What Changed - Persist bounded source-owner and manager repair lineages with stable fingerprints and retry limits. - Resume incomplete disposition repairs after a server restart. - Keep recovery ownership separate from source issue ownership and enforce source mutation authority. - Project live retry evidence into issue and blocker summaries. - Show recovery owner, return owner, attempt count, and retry state in the board user interface. - Treat expired or parked retries as attention states unless a queued or running attempt exists. - Atomically deduplicate disposition-repair wake requests with a company-scoped partial unique index. - Reuse the winning run when concurrent reconciliation loses the uniqueness race, without duplicate scheduling activity. - Honor disabled on-demand wake policy before recovery scheduling and again before delayed retry promotion. - Keep the new index migration safe for lagging seeded databases that already contain the index. - Add server and user interface tests for recovery, restart, ownership, retry, concurrency, and blocker states. - Update the implementation and execution semantics documents. ## Verification - Focused server recovery and ownership suites: 282 tests passed on the repaired base candidate. - Focused user interface recovery suites: 128 tests passed on the repaired base candidate. - Atomic-deduplication schema and recovery suites: 111 tests passed on the first Greptile repair. - Recovery and scheduled-retry wake-policy suites: 126 tests passed at `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. - The exact lagging-source migration-order test passed after the index migration became idempotent: 1 test passed and 62 unrelated tests were skipped. - `@paperclipai/db` and `@paperclipai/server` typechecks passed at the current head. - Migration generation and migration safety checks passed for migration `0226_tan_colossus.sql`. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm build` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm test:run` passed 4,540 tests on the repaired base candidate. Four fixed-port cases met listeners that already existed on the host. - The two unchanged fixed-port files passed in an isolated network namespace: 129 tests passed and 27 tests were skipped. - Independent Security and QA reviews approved `63c0423aab54c66f2293a20b0fb3f3b013ee3ba8`; exact-head re-review is required after automated checks settle on `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. ## Risks - Recovery orchestration affects issue liveness and ownership. The new paths use bounded attempts, stable fingerprints, row locks, authority checks, and database uniqueness. - A conservative attention state can show more warnings when a scheduled retry has no queued or running attempt. It does not hide stopped work. - Migration `0226_tan_colossus.sql` creates a partial unique index on a known-large table. Migrations run transactionally, so `CONCURRENTLY` is unavailable. The matching disposition-repair key namespace is introduced by this release, so deployed databases have no matching rows before the index is added. > 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 from the GPT-5 model family used agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime did not expose the exact model ID or context window. - Anthropic Claude Opus 5 used a 1M context window, tool use, and code execution for part of the user interface repair, as recorded in the commit history. ## 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 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
e0b64529b3 |
feat(auth): normalize agent login in the sandbox onto one session table and a capability contract (#11730)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Sandbox agents need a safe login path for each supported adapter > - Codex device login and Claude setup-token login used separate session stores and route logic > - Separate stores made session lookup, expiry, and login capability checks harder to keep consistent > - This pull request unifies both flows on one session table and one capability contract > - The benefit is one company-scoped login model with public session identifiers and shared lifecycle rules ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) **Problem or motivation** Codex and Claude sandbox login used separate session stores and different route paths. This split increased the risk of inconsistent company scoping, session lookup, and cleanup. **Proposed solution** Use `adapter_auth_sessions` for both login flows. Use public session identifiers for API access. Select login behavior from projected adapter capability data. Share the route spine, lease arguments, runner lifecycle, and reaper rules. **Alternatives considered** Keep two session tables and add matching fixes to both routes. This keeps duplicate logic and does not provide one capability contract, so this pull request uses shared infrastructure. **Roadmap alignment** This change supports the shipped Cloud / Sandbox agents milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. ## What Changed - Unify Codex device login and Claude setup-token login on `adapter_auth_sessions`. - Return and look up sessions with company-scoped public session identifiers. - Enforce one active session for each company, owner, and adapter. - Share the login route spine, sandbox lease arguments, runner lifecycle, and missing-auth check. - Add a standalone setup-token reaper with adapter-specific row selection. - Add optional login capability projection for adapters and drive route and UI selection from that data. - Rename the provider flag to `supportsLoginPty` and validate its deprecated alias. - Remove the old Claude setup-token session table and add the required migrations. ## Verification - Server typecheck passed with `tsc`. - Database typecheck passed. - UI typecheck passed with `tsc -b`. - Codex login service and route suites passed. - Setup-token session, route, and reaper suites passed. - Adapter session schema, plugin validator, capability projection, UI render, and Daytona suites passed. - GitHub Actions must confirm the complete CI gate after pull request creation. ## Risks - The migrations remove short-lived in-flight login rows during deployment. A login that spans the migration can continue until its provider lease expires. - The Codex credential store remains company-scoped. A cross-owner credential race remains a documented, board-accepted risk. - API clients that use internal session row identifiers no longer work. The API accepts only public session identifiers. ## Model Used Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model ID not exposed in this handoff, large context window, reasoning, and repository tool use. The implementing engineer produced the code with AI assistance. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a2bf936f9a |
feat(workspaces): sign the workspace login handoff and gate readiness (#11671)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Managed worktree services run isolated Paperclip instances with cloned databases. > - A reachable service was reported as ready even when its database, runtime identity, or login path was not usable. > - The first candidate added verified database seeding and managed repair in #11665. > - This pull request consolidates that candidate with signed login handoff and a complete readiness contract. > - Post-QA fixes close five defects in repair identity, repair responses, UI retry, seed journal handling, and seed-source trust. > - The benefit is a workspace that either opens safely or reports one accurate recovery action. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work, so the problem is described here. **What happened** Managed workspace URLs could return HTTP 200 and report ready while login failed. QA also found cases where repair used the wrong instance identity, returned a generic error, left the UI stuck, rejected a safe journal lag, or trusted a mutable workspace manifest. **Expected behavior** Opening a ready workspace signs the board user in to the correct isolated instance. Provisioning and repair use a registered source and report a structured recovery state. **Actual behavior** Entry depended on a password copied into the clone. Several failure paths could publish stale readiness, hide the repair precondition, or trust state that the workspace could modify. **Additional context** This pull request includes the commits first published in #11665. That pull request keeps the original base head for review history. This consolidated pull request is the merge candidate. Related open readiness work includes #11575 and #11621. ## What Changed - Adds a short-lived, signed, single-use login ticket. It binds the user, workspace, instance, and runtime origin. - Exchanges the ticket through Better Auth. It creates the session and cookie through the supported adapter path. - Adds protected workspace readiness fields for the database, clone data, login handoff, seed phase, and runtime identity. - Fails readiness closed when the guest has no company or execution-workspace binding. - Binds ticket issuance to the exact cloned user and active company membership selected for the handoff. - Verifies every current active board identity through the exact-user handoff before publication or reuse. - Gates managed runtime publication on the readiness contract and the recorded worktree instance identity. - Refreshes runtime work products from the live runtime row after a port change. - Adds one workspace access card with ready, degraded, repairing, and failed states. - Uses the runtime response identity for repair. It returns structured repair precondition errors. - Lets a valid source journal lag converge during provisioning. - Binds seed and repair manifests to a source registered outside the agent-writable worktree. - Clears recovered UI errors so a successful retry can open the workspace. - Makes runtime tests register canonical sources and avoid ports owned by live host listeners. - Keeps Vitest on source suites when compiled `dist` trees exist. - Isolates CLI and adapter tests from ambient AWS and runtime API environment variables. - Preserves a 404 response for cross-company workspace ID lookups before runtime authorization. - Makes concurrent single-flight coverage independent of path-canonicalization scheduling order. ## Verification The following checks passed on the integrated head: ```sh pnpm -r typecheck pnpm build pnpm check:token-gates pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations ``` - The server source lane passed 420 files and 4,953 tests. Five tests were skipped. - The CLI lane passed 57 files and 385 tests. - The database lane passed 26 files and 97 tests. - The shared package passed 58 files and 506 tests. - The adapter utility lane passed 640 tests. Four tests were skipped. - The Claude adapter passed 220 tests. One test was skipped. - The Codex adapter passed 323 tests. - The OpenClaw adapter passed 13 tests. - The OpenCode adapter passed 42 tests. - The plugin SDK passed 45 tests. - The workspace runtime suite passed 124 tests. - The caller-scoped readiness and handoff suite passed 52 tests. - The workspace provisioning shell suite passed 7 tests. - The runtime exposure suite passed 17 tests while live host mappings occupied fixed test ports. - `git diff --check` passed and the worktree is clean. The serialized route lane will run in GitHub CI with its normal shards. No deployment or active-workspace migration was performed. ## Risks - This is a medium-risk authentication and runtime-readiness change. - The login ticket uses exact origin, workspace, instance, and user binding. It has a short expiry and a one-time nonce. - Runtime publication is stricter. A real readiness, identity, per-user handoff, or control-plane database disagreement now blocks publication. - This pull request supersedes #11665 as the merge candidate. Close #11665 after this pull request merges. - No new database migration is included. The lockfile and workflow files are unchanged. - Deployment and active-workspace migration are intentionally outside this pull request. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5[1m]`), 1M context, extended thinking, tool use, and code execution produced the main candidate. OpenAI GPT-5 (`gpt-5`) through Codex, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution, integrated the post-QA fixes and hardened the test gates. The Codex context-window size was not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
120ae5428f |
feat(server): add a one-click relink action for detached custom-image templates (#11641)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip environments can use captured custom images for agent runs > - A configuration fingerprint change can detach a valid custom-image template > - Operators need a safe way to confirm that the image still matches the boot source > - This pull request adds a guarded relink action with drift classification and audit logging > - The benefit is a deliberate relink without a new sandbox boot or provider snapshot ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting environment, server, and UI behavior. **Problem or motivation** A custom-image template detaches when the environment configuration fingerprint changes. The runtime then uses the base image, even when the boot source did not change. The only prior remedy required a full re-capture. **Proposed solution** Add an operator-triggered relink action. Classify configuration drift from a server-owned boot-relevant snapshot. Relink knob-only drift without confirmation. Require explicit confirmation for boot-source or unclassified drift. Guard the route for instance administrators and record a safe activity event. **Alternatives considered** Keep requiring a full re-capture. This adds a sandbox boot and provider snapshot for cases where the image remains correct. **Roadmap alignment** The roadmap has no matching custom-image relink item. This change addresses an environment operation gap. **Additional context** The relink response exposes raw drift values only in the transient 409 response to the instance administrator. The service never persists or logs fingerprints or configuration values. Reserved identity-path segments fail closed. ## What Changed - Add `relinkActiveTemplate` with drift classification and conditional fingerprint update. - Persist a server-owned boot-relevant configuration snapshot during capture. - Add the guarded relink route with strict request validation and activity logging. - Add the relink action and confirmation flow to the environment page. - Add service, route, UI, and OpenAPI coverage. ## Verification - Run the focused service suite: `pnpm vitest run server/src/services/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`. - Run the focused route suite: `pnpm vitest run server/src/routes/environment-custom-image-routes.test.ts`. - Run the focused UI suite: `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx`. - Run server and UI TypeScript checks. - Confirm the OpenAPI snapshot matches the new route. - Confirm all required GitHub checks pass on commit `e46fdcfe94a719be854adf8849d30714e5b70b93`. - Confirm Greptile reports 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks The relink action can keep an image after configuration drift. The service requires explicit confirmation for boot-source or unclassified drift. Reserved path segments produce a safe unresolved marker and never enter stored values. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. The model used repository inspection, GitHub operations, and PR preparation with tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window value or a separate reasoning-mode value. ## 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
|
6b8e42168e |
Add governed secret alias confirmation cards (#11486)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need scoped secret bindings to use external services safely. > - Agents could not request an existing secret under a new config name without an internal secret identifier. > - Existing binding proposals were only visible in Settings and did not create an issue-thread approval path. > - A confirmation card could record acceptance without proving that the binding was created. > - This pull request extends the existing secret proposal system with safe source references and governed issue-thread confirmation cards. > - The benefit is a one-click flow that creates the binding or shows a clear failure without exposing secret material. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prerequisite: #11482. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server REST APIs, shared interaction contracts, database proposal schema, and issue-thread UI. **Problem or motivation** An agent can need an existing bound secret under a second config name. The agent cannot safely discover the internal secret identifier. The existing proposal is also easy for the operator to miss because it only appears in Settings. A generic confirmation can record acceptance without executing the binding. **Proposed solution** Let an agent create a binding proposal from one of its existing config paths. Mint a server-owned, human-only confirmation card on the checked-out issue. Recheck the operator's target-agent permission under the proposal row lock. Execute the existing proposal transaction after card acceptance. Store an `executed` or `failed` result on the card. Render the complete lifecycle in the issue thread and attention resolver. **Alternatives considered** A new alias subsystem would duplicate proposal quotas, expiry, authorization, and binding synchronization. A text-only issue comment would not provide a governed action or an execution result. An agent-supplied card payload would permit metadata smuggling. This change uses the existing proposal transaction and a server-owned payload instead. **Roadmap alignment** This change extends the completed "Secrets Manager with per-agent access" roadmap item. It preserves scoped bindings and audited resolution. The required GitHub search found no other open duplicate issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Added safe source-config-path binding proposals and preserved user-secret ownership checks. - Added a proposal-to-interaction link and an idempotent database migration. - Minted human-only `request_confirmation` cards with server-owned `secretProposal` metadata. - Rejected agent-supplied governed metadata and agent addressees. - Rechecked `agent_config:update` authority under the proposal lock before execution. - Recorded `executed` or `failed` results and posted a failure comment when no binding was created. - Settled failed accepted proposals atomically and mirrored rejection, withdrawal, and expiry in both directions. - Emitted `secret.binding.created` for new agent binding writes. - Added a dedicated issue-thread card for pending, executed, failed, rejected, withdrawn, and expired states. - Showed only the source label, target agent, config path, skeptical justification, expiry, and safe failure code. - Replaced resolved attention-query entries immediately with the stitched server result. - Added focused server, database, UI, and state-transition tests. - Added Storybook fixtures for every review state and documented the API and agent behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionInteractionResolver.test.ts` — 58 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build-storybook` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts` — 142 passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts --silent` — 1 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` — server 4,175 passed, UI 4,109 passed; the CLI AWS-doctor case passes 8/8 with runtime-injected static AWS credential variables unset. - `pnpm build` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - Migration `0221` adds one nullable foreign key and one index. It uses idempotent guards. - The accept route performs a governed write after it records card acceptance. A failed write is visible and settles the proposal as rejected. - Concurrent proposal and card resolution must use proposal-before-interaction lock order. A race test covers direct approval against card rejection. - The new audit event increases activity rows for newly added agent bindings. It does not include secret values or fingerprints. - The card includes only safe proposal metadata. It does not include secret value, fingerprint, version, or internal secret identifiers. - The UI uses the stitched resolution result. Focused tests cover immediate cache replacement and every terminal state. > This work extends an existing completed roadmap capability. The GitHub duplicate search returned no other open related work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose its context-window size. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution, database integration tests, UI rendering, and GitHub tools were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
c1c46f1e4e |
feat: Claude login on the new-agent page before agent creation (#11347)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Claude local adapter supports subscription login through a sandbox > - The new-agent page must show login before the user creates an agent > - Test results must not expose raw sandbox diagnostics or secret values > - This pull request adds the login UI to both Test lanes and closes the diagnostic boundary > - The branch also adds durable cleanup recovery for failed sandbox teardown > - Reusable sandboxes must retain both their recorded teardown configuration and a valid lifecycle path until destruction succeeds > - The benefit is a usable login flow with fixed public checks, redacted server logs, and recoverable sandbox cleanup ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related public work: [#9488](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9488) adds first-class recognition for `CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN` in headless and remote runs. Related public issue: [#2681](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/2681) requests Claude Code subscription support. This pull request adds the login transport and new-agent UI flow that those changes do not provide. **Subsystem affected:** Claude local adapter, server login probes, sandbox provider setup, cleanup recovery, and the new-agent UI. **Problem or motivation:** The Test lanes did not show the sandbox login panel in all supported cases. Test results also exposed raw probe diagnostics, and JSON escapes could end secret redaction early. **Proposed solution:** Surface the login capability through the bundled provider manifest. Prepare the same probe runtime in the ACP lane. Send diagnostics only to redacted server logs. Keep Test checks on fixed public messages. Normalize login URL hints to allowlisted HTTPS Claude and Anthropic hosts. Consume JSON escapes during redaction. Preserve failed sandbox cleanup state across retries and restarts, and prevent deletion from severing the lifecycle context of a live reusable sandbox. **Alternatives considered:** Keep raw diagnostics in Test checks or trust login URL text from the sandbox. Both choices increase information exposure. Keep separate probe behavior in the ACP lane. That choice would leave the two Test lanes inconsistent. ## What Changed - Surface the sandbox login panel on both Test lanes. - Reconcile the bundled Daytona plugin manifest so `supportsSetupTokenLogin` reaches the UI capability gate. - Prepare the ACP Test lane with the same probe runtime as the CLI Test lane. - Add the `claude_acp_login_probe_unavailable` warning when the ACP probe cannot run. - Send raw sandbox diagnostics only to redacted server logs. - Keep Test checks on fixed public messages in the ACP, managed-config, and CLI paths. - Normalize login URL hints to allowlisted HTTPS Claude and Anthropic hosts. - Redact JSON and escaped-JSON secret values, including escaped quotes and backslashes. - Preserve orphan cleanup records across provider failures, restarts, and unavailable plugins. - Atomically block environment deletion while a live reusable sandbox lease still depends on it. - Verify pending cleanup destroys plugin sandboxes with the provider configuration recorded on the lease, even after the current environment configuration changes. ## Verification - Head under review: `506b7fa2d83c36bfa5fd722ee9d95b0c7431c241`. - Focused environment route/service/runtime coverage passes: 196 tests across 3 files. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - The full Vitest run completed with 4,754 passing and 28 failing tests. All 23 source-test failures reproduce unchanged on parent head `58cfe61a33191ce03d965d65085d26064b4888ba`; the other 5 are duplicate executions from stale `server/dist` output. The failures are unrelated macOS path/listener and scheduler-fixture failures, so there is no new bad commit for bisect to localize. - All required CI checks pass for the current head, including build, typecheck/release registry, all server and workspace shards, serialized server suites, canary, and e2e. - A fresh Greptile review for `506b7fa2d83c36bfa5fd722ee9d95b0c7431c241` reports 5/5, “safe to merge,” with no blocking failure remaining. ## Risks - A probe or redaction change could hide useful server diagnostics. - An allowlist change could reject a valid Claude login URL. - Cleanup recovery changes could affect provider teardown ordering. - An environment with a live reusable sandbox can no longer be deleted until the owning issue or execution workspace completes teardown. - The implementation keeps public Test messages fixed and sends detail to redacted server logs. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex — exact model ID: GPT-5; tool use and code execution enabled; extended reasoning enabled. The implementation author used AI-assisted development. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and documented the result - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation or confirmed no separate documentation change is needed - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
e71ce9a9d3 |
feat: sandbox provider capability contract with fail-closed effective resolution (#11463)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip runs work through adapters and sandbox providers > - Providers need a clear contract so the server can use only verified capabilities > - A declared capability must not grant a method that the live worker did not verify > - This pull request adds manifest declarations and fail-closed effective capability resolution > - The benefit is safe provider reuse across execution targets and run lifecycles ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) **Problem or motivation** Sandbox providers expose different runtime methods. The server needs one safe capability contract that accounts for provider declarations, worker verification, and narrowing configuration. **Proposed solution** Add strict manifest validation for five sandbox capabilities. Resolve effective capabilities as the subset of verified, declared, and narrowed values. Store the result as a frozen execution-target snapshot. **Alternatives considered** Trusting the manifest alone could grant methods that the worker does not support. Trusting only a fixed built-in list would reject valid third-party providers. The intersection rule keeps the verified runtime ceiling and supports both provider types. **Roadmap alignment** This change supports the ACP run lifecycle track and the sandbox provider contract work in the current roadmap. **Additional context** The legacy `supportsReusableLeases` field remains supported. The nested capability validator rejects unknown keys. Missing or unavailable verification resolves all capabilities to `false`. ## What Changed - Add strict `sandboxCapabilities` manifest validation with legacy reusable-lease compatibility. - Carry declarations through the ready-driver projection. - Add fail-closed effective resolution from verified, declared, and narrowed capabilities. - Add narrowing for provider configuration, Kubernetes Job leases, and Daytona sessions. - Add a frozen read-only capability snapshot to execution targets. - Add focused tests and keep existing characterization baselines covered. - Add and update sandbox provider capability documentation. ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-environment-driver-sandbox-capabilities.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/sandbox-capability-contract.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-capabilities.test.ts` - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/startup-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/turn-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/settlement-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/composed-run-characterization.test.ts` - Package typechecks for shared, server, and adapter-utils pass. - Stage-2 security review suites pass with 28 tests. ## Risks The resolver fails closed when verification is absent or unavailable. Providers that rely on undeclared capabilities may see narrower behavior until they expose verified worker methods. The change does not alter the existing native-sync guard. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model ID `gpt-5`, tool use and code execution. The implementation author used this model to assist with the change. ## 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
f4802b1bbc |
feat(runtime-exposure): least-privilege Tailscale HTTPS broker, shared contract, and persisted exposure state (#11524)
<!-- Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip starts and supervises managed runtime services for a project's execution workspaces, so an agent's branch can be previewed while it works > - Those services only listen on plain loopback HTTP. A person on another device, or on a phone, cannot open the preview > - A Tailscale HTTPS mapping solves this, but `tailscale serve` needs host privileges that the Paperclip server process must not hold > - This pull request adds the foundation only: a separate least-privilege host broker, the shared exposure contract, and the database columns that hold exposure state > - Nothing calls the broker yet, so there is no behavior change. The benefit is that the privileged surface is small, reviewable, and isolated before any lifecycle code depends on it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. The change follows the feature request template. **Subsystem affected** Managed workspace runtime services, the shared type and validator package, and the database schema. **Problem or motivation** A managed runtime service binds to loopback only. There is no supported way to reach that preview from another device. Adding HTTPS directly to the server would mean the server process runs `tailscale serve`, which needs privileges far wider than the task requires. A compromised or buggy server could then map any port to the tailnet. **Proposed solution** Split the privileged work into a separate broker process with a narrow protocol, and define one shared contract that the server, the UI, the runtime, and the broker all read. Land this foundation first, with no caller, so the privileged code can be reviewed on its own. **Alternatives considered** - Call `tailscale serve` from the server process. This was rejected because it gives the server unrestricted mapping authority. - Use `sudo` for single `tailscale` commands. This was rejected because the argument list is the only guard, and it is easy to widen by accident. - Use a generic reverse proxy. This was rejected because it does not remove the need for a privileged Tailscale mapping step. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the existing managed workspace runtime capability. It adds no new product surface on its own. **Additional context** The broker is the security boundary of the feature, so it is deliberately the first slice. Three later pull requests build on it: the server exposure lifecycle, the runtime lease and recovery integration, and the leased-port mediator. ## What Changed - Add the `@paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker` workspace package. The broker listens on a unix socket, authorizes each peer with `SO_PEERCRED`, and answers a small request protocol. - Restrict what the broker will map. It accepts only same-number HTTPS-to-loopback pairs inside the Paperclip port range, refuses protected ports, and confirms that the loopback port belongs to a Paperclip-owned listener. - Parse every request with a strict JSON reader that rejects duplicate keys, prototype keys, and unknown fields. - Write an append-only audit record for each broker decision. - Add the shared exposure contract in `@paperclipai/shared`: the `RuntimeExposureConfig`, `RuntimeExposureState`, and `RuntimeExposureStatus` types, their zod validators, the app and HMR port rules, and the loopback-bind helpers. - Persist exposure state on `workspace_runtime_services` with the new `exposure` column, plus the server-private `exposure_handle` and `backend_url` columns that are never serialized to API clients. - Add the `execution_workspace_runtime_leases` table that the later lease slice uses. - Extend the runtime read-model test fixture for the three new columns. ## Verification Focused checks, all run on this branch: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker test` — 12 files, 82 tests pass. This covers peer credentials, port policy, protected ports, the serve config writer, the strict JSON reader, argv parsing, and the socket server. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker typecheck` — clean. - `npx vitest run --root packages/shared src/runtime-exposure src/validators/runtime-exposure.test.ts` — 3 files, 40 tests pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — runs `check:migrations` first. Migration numbering and migration safety both pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean. - `npx vitest run --root server src/services/workspace-runtime-read-model.test.ts` — 3 tests pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` — 139 errors, which is exactly the count on `master` before this branch. All 139 come from the unbuilt `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` package. To confirm the exposure state is inert, start a managed runtime service as usual. The new columns stay null and the service behaves as it does today. ## Risks - Migration risk is low. Both migrations only add a table and three nullable columns. No column is backfilled and no existing column changes. The migration safety check passes. - Behavior risk is low. No code path calls the broker in this pull request, and the shared exposure fields are optional. - The broker is privileged, so it is the real risk surface. It is mitigated by peer-credential authorization, a fixed port range, a protected-port deny list, same-number pair enforcement, listener-ownership checks, strict JSON parsing, and an audit trail. Reviewers should read `packages/tailscale-https-broker/src/authorization.ts` and `src/port-policy.ts` closely. - The broker requires a `tailscale` version floor, which its README records. An older host CLI makes the broker refuse to start rather than map incorrectly. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes because a new workspace package is added. The diff is the new importer block, plus one duplicate `tinyexec` entry that pnpm removed. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
10d0555189 |
fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. **What happened?** Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. **Expected behavior** Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9e9f744f58 |
Show blocker links in the task chat (#11456)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps operators supervise agent work through tasks and task threads. > - The redesigned task thread shows the current work and its state. > - A blocked task did not show the dependency that prevented progress. > - Operators had to leave the thread to find the direct and final blockers. > - This pull request adds compact blocker links at the top and bottom of the task thread. > - The benefit is that operators can identify and open the relevant tasks without adding a large notice to the thread. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The redesigned task thread did not show which task directly blocked the current task or which task ultimately blocked its dependency chain. **Subsystem affected** `server/`, `packages/shared/`, and `ui/` task-blocker presentation. **Current behavior** A blocked task can open in the redesigned thread without a visible dependency link at the top or bottom of the conversation. **Proposed behavior** Show one compact amber row for the direct blocker. Show a second row for the selected final blocker when one exists. Render the rows at both ends of the thread. **Reason and benefit** Operators can see the reason for the blocked state and open the relevant task from the conversation. The compact rows preserve thread density. **Breaking changes** None. The new blocker-attention fields are optional. Existing clients remain compatible. ## What Changed - Added a compact task-chat component for direct and selected final blocker links. - Added the blocker rows to the top and bottom of populated and empty task threads. - Added link-ready blocker-attention details so an intermediate selected task stays on its correct direct chain. - Included blocker-link changes in the thread content key so pinned threads follow a newly added bottom row. - Added component, scrolling, server contract, and Storybook coverage for the new states. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` (38 tests passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks - Low risk. The rows only render while the task status is `blocked` and an unresolved blocker is available. - Long titles are truncated to keep each blocker on one line. The full task label remains available in the link title. - Older server payloads keep the original leaf-selection behavior because the new sampled details are optional. > 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 with GPT-5. The run used tool-enabled reasoning and code execution. The context-window size was not exposed to the run. ## 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> |
||
|
scotttongandPaperclip
|
eabecc6f77 |
feat(annotations): include issue document annotations in agent review context (#11332)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Reviewers annotate plans and issue documents with inline comments, and assigned agents act on that feedback > - The server already builds a bounded review context from open plan annotations and includes it in agent wake payloads > - Non-plan issue documents did not get the same treatment: their open annotation threads never reached the agent, and the properties pane did not surface their annotations > - This pull request extends the review-context path and the properties-pane UI to issue documents, at parity with plans > - The benefit is that agent feedback on any issue document reaches the assigned agent, not only feedback on the plan ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The review-context pipeline that delivers inline annotation feedback to assigned agents, and the properties pane that surfaces those annotations to reviewers. **Subsystem affected** The server review-context path (`server/src/services/plan-review-context.ts`, wake payload assembly in `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`, `server/src/routes/issues.ts`), shared wake-payload types (`packages/shared`, `packages/adapter-utils`), and the issue properties pane (`ui/src/components/issue-properties/`). **Current behavior** A reviewer can annotate any issue document, not only the plan. The agent wake payload includes open annotation threads for the plan document only. Feedback left on other issue documents is invisible to the assigned agent. In the properties pane, the Artifacts tab also gives no way to see or open a document's annotations. **Proposed behavior** Add `buildDocumentReviewContext` beside the existing plan builder. It collects open annotation threads for all non-plan issue documents, applies the same thread, comment, and character budgets across documents, and reports truncation. Include the result as a new `documentReviewContext` field in agent wake payloads and in the issue wake-context route. Keep the plan context on its legacy builder and field so plan-only wakes stay byte-for-byte compatible. Render the new context in the adapter wake-payload text, and surface annotation counts and the annotation panel for documents in the properties pane's Plans and Artifacts tabs. **Reason and benefit** The floating annotation popover and persistent highlight UI landed earlier; this change completes the loop so agent feedback on any issue document reaches the assigned agent, not only feedback on the plan. **Breaking changes** None. The wake payload gains a new optional `documentReviewContext` field; the existing plan context field and its legacy builder are unchanged, so plan-only wakes stay byte-for-byte compatible. ## What Changed - Add `buildDocumentReviewContext` in `server/src/services/plan-review-context.ts`: bounded review context (shared thread/comment/character budgets, per-document legacy limits) over all non-plan issue documents - Include `documentReviewContext` in agent wake payloads (`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`) and in the issue wake-context response (`server/src/routes/issues.ts`) - Add shared `DocumentReviewContext` / `DocumentReviewContextDocument` types in `packages/shared` - Normalize and render the new context in adapter wake-payload text (`packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`), with tests - Show a `DocumentAnnotationsCountChip` and the annotation panel for documents in the properties pane Plans and Artifacts tabs, with tests - Extend server document-annotations service tests to cover the new context builder ## Verification - Run `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts` from the repo root — 104 tests pass - Run `TZ=UTC npx vitest run ui/src/components/issue-properties/IssuePropertiesDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationPopover.test.tsx` from the repo root — 75 tests pass (one pre-existing monitor-row case asserts UTC timestamps, so use `TZ=UTC` locally; CI runs in UTC) - `pnpm run typecheck` in `server/` passes - Manual: annotate a non-plan issue document, then wake the assigned agent with a comment — the wake payload lists the open document annotation threads; the Artifacts tab shows the annotation count chip and opens the panel ## Risks - The wake payload gains a new optional `documentReviewContext` field; consumers that ignore unknown fields are unaffected, and the plan context field is unchanged - The context is new input to agent wakes; shared budgets (same limits as the plan context) bound token cost across all documents - Low UI risk: the properties-pane changes reuse the existing annotation components > 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 - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), with extended thinking and agentic tool use (Claude Code harness) ## 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> |
||
|
|
f0e6c0f549 |
feat(server): receive and apply the Paperclip Cloud onboarding seed (#11098)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Cloud provisions a dedicated tenant stack for each
customer. During signup it asks for a mission, a name and role for the
first agent, and a first task.
> - Cloud pushes those answers into the new stack at activation, as
`POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed`.
> - No route served that path. The tenant answered 404, so Cloud
recorded the push as unacknowledged and retried on every portfolio
fetch.
> - The failure was soft. The answers stayed durable in Cloud and the
stack still activated. But the stack opened on the empty first-run
wizard, and it asked the customer again for what they had already given.
> - This pull request adds the receiving endpoint. It validates the
seed, applies it, and acknowledges it.
> - The benefit is that a seeded stack opens with the mission, the agent
and the first task already in place.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue covers this. The problem is described in-PR,
following the feature template.
**Subsystem affected**
server/ — Express REST API and orchestration services. Also
`packages/db` (one new table) and `packages/shared` (one new validator).
**Problem or motivation**
Paperclip Cloud collects onboarding answers at signup and pushes them to
the tenant stack at activation. The tenant had no route for that
request. It answered 404. Cloud treats a non-2xx as "not yet applied",
so it kept the answers and retried, but the stack itself stayed
unseeded. A customer who had already named their mission, their first
agent and their first task arrived at an empty first-run wizard that
asked for all three again.
**Proposed solution**
Serve `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed`. Validate the
body, apply it to the company, then acknowledge it.
The seed is customer free text, so it is bounded and validated in
`packages/shared` and read from the JSON body only. It is never read
from an `x-paperclip-cloud-*` header. That header set is the trusted
identity envelope: every member is derived server-side from the host
plus verified domain records, and that is exactly what makes it
trustworthy. Mixing user content into it would remove the property. A
test plants a mission on a cloud header and asserts that the body value
wins.
Application reuses the shapes the first-run wizard already produces, so
a seeded stack and a manually onboarded one look the same afterwards:
- The mission becomes the company-level goal. A multi-line mission
splits into a title and a description, as the wizard does.
- The agent becomes the company's first hire. Its free-text role ("Chief
of Staff") lands on `title`. The structural `role` stays `ceo`, which is
what the org chart and the default-instructions lookup read.
- The first task becomes an issue in the Onboarding project, assigned to
that agent.
Cloud retries until it gets a 2xx, and it reads any 2xx as "the tenant
holds this content". So the endpoint is idempotent per `revision`. A new
`company_onboarding_seeds` table records the applied revision together
with the goal, the agent and the issue it produced. A replay of a
revision that already matches is a successful no-op. A later revision —
the customer edited their answers — updates those three rows in place
instead of creating a second agent and a second task. The record is
written last, after every other write has landed, so a partial
application cannot present itself as acknowledged.
Everything is applied before the 200 is sent. This is an ordering
guarantee, not eventual consistency. The tests read the database
immediately after the response, with no waiting and no polling, so a
lazy receiver fails them on a fast machine as well as a slow one. That
matters because the redirect into the tenant dashboard is gated on this
acknowledgement.
**Alternatives considered**
Store the seed and let the tenant UI apply it on first load. Rejected:
the dashboard redirect is gated on the acknowledgement, so a background
apply would let the dashboard open before the agent and the task exist.
The whole point is that it must not.
Reuse `POST /companies/:companyId/agents` and `POST
/companies/:companyId/issues` over HTTP from Cloud. Rejected: it needs
three round trips with no shared idempotency key, and it moves the "did
all of it land?" decision to the caller.
**Roadmap alignment**
This completes an existing Cloud-to-tenant contract. It does not add a
new user-facing surface.
## What Changed
- Add `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed` in
`server/src/routes/onboarding-seed.ts`. It authenticates exactly as
`POST /api/companies/:companyId/logo` does, through
`assertCompanyAccess`.
- Add `server/src/services/onboarding-seed.ts`. It applies the mission,
the agent and the first task, and records the applied revision last.
- Add the `company_onboarding_seeds` table: schema, migration `0216`,
and journal entry. It holds the applied revision and the ids of the
goal, agent and issue the seed produced.
- Add `applyOnboardingSeedSchema` in `packages/shared`. It bounds
mission to 2000, agent name to 80, agent role to 120, task title to 200,
and task details to 2000 — the same limits Cloud enforces before it
sends.
- Mount the router in `server/src/app.ts` and register the path in the
OpenAPI document.
- Add `server/src/__tests__/onboarding-seed-route.test.ts` with 13
tests.
- The seeded agent is created on `claude_local`. This mirrors the
teams-catalog default for agents created server-side, where no human
runs an environment test first. `PAPERCLIP_ONBOARDING_SEED_ADAPTER_TYPE`
overrides it.
## Verification
```sh
pnpm typecheck # whole workspace, passes
npx vitest run \
server/src/__tests__/onboarding-seed-route.test.ts \
server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts # 15 passed
```
The suite runs against embedded Postgres with migrations applied, so
migration `0216` is exercised by every test.
The route tests cover:
- the happy path — mission, agent and task all applied, read immediately
after the 200
- replay of the same revision — no second agent, no second task, no
second goal, no second project
- a later revision — the goal, agent and task are updated in place
- a multi-line mission splitting into a goal title and description
- a revision-only seed
- the activity log entry written once, and not again on a replay
- a caller without access to the company — 403, and nothing written
- a body with no revision — 400
- each field bound past its limit — 400
- a mission planted on an `x-paperclip-cloud-*` header — ignored, body
wins
- an existing Onboarding project — reused, not duplicated
Not verified here: the full Cloud-to-tenant walk against a live stack.
That needs a deployed Cloud and a provisioned tenant together, which is
separate staging work.
## Risks
Migration `0216` creates one new table. It adds no column to an existing
table, rewrites nothing, and backfills nothing, so it is safe to apply
online. The migration safety check passes.
The endpoint writes to a company. Access is enforced by
`assertCompanyAccess`, the same gate the company logo write uses, and a
test covers the denial.
Behavioral note for stacks that already hold data. If a company already
has a non-built-in `ceo` agent, a first seed updates that agent's name
and title rather than creating a second lead. Likewise a seed adopts an
existing company-level goal rather than adding a parallel one. This is
deliberate: the seed is the customer's own stated answer from signup,
and two competing missions or two leads would be worse than one updated
in place. In the intended case — a stack that Cloud has just activated —
none of these exist yet.
The seeded agent is created on `claude_local` with an empty adapter
config. It is idle and needs the usual credential setup before it runs.
Seeding it does not start it.
## Update — rebased onto master + review hardening
Master moved on after this PR was cut, so it was **rebased onto
`master`** and
the seed migration was **renumbered from `0212` to `0216`** (the merged
#11101
took `0212_onboarding_first_task_unique`); the drizzle journal was
re-stitched
and `check:migrations` passes.
Two things landed on top of the original receiver:
- **Mission-only walk contract (PAP-67 r17.4).** The tenant now owns the
first
agent and the first task via #11101's server-owned onboarding path,
which
stamps `ONBOARDING_FIRST_TASK_ORIGIN_KIND` and races safely on the
partial
unique index `issues_onboarding_first_task_uq`. A comment in the apply
path
documents why this receiver leaves the first task to that path on the
cloud
walk, and a paperclip-cloud `node:test`
(`src/onboarding/walk-seed.test.ts`)
asserts the walk's seed carries no `agent`/`firstTask`. The receiver
retains
the agent/first-task code for its documented body contract, kept inert
on the
cloud path by the mission-only seed.
- **Three Greptile P1 fixes** (`95622fa37`): concurrent application is
now
serialized under a per-company `pg_advisory_xact_lock` (no duplicate
goal/agent/project/task on overlapping pushes); a revised first task
carries
its resolved `assigneeAgentId`/`goalId`; and the
`company.onboarding_seed_applied`
audit write is best-effort so a logging failure can't leave the entry
permanently absent. Two new regression tests cover the first two.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking,
with tool use and code execution. Used for the original codebase
investigation, the implementation, and the tests. The rebase, migration
renumber, mission-only contract, and the three P1 fixes were done with
Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, with tool use
and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
e5a7fd7038 |
Add sandbox device-login for the Codex adapter (#11237)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Agent adapters connect Paperclip to tools such as the Codex command line tool. > - A sandboxed Codex agent may start without a credential. > - The operator needs a safe sign-in flow that does not expose credentials to the shared package or the sandbox. > - This pull request adds a company-scoped device-login flow with a temporary Daytona sandbox. > - The flow promotes the credential only after readiness checks pass and removes the temporary sandbox after use. > - The result lets an operator sign in to a sandboxed Codex agent from the agent form. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) **Problem or motivation** A Codex adapter that runs in a sandbox cannot authenticate when the company has no pre-provisioned Codex credential. **Proposed solution** Add a company-scoped device-login session. Start a temporary sandbox, run `codex login --device-auth`, stream the code and URL, verify readiness, promote the credential, and delete the sandbox. **Alternatives considered** Pre-provisioning a credential does not support first-time sandbox login. Keeping the credential in the login sandbox does not provide a durable company credential. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the roadmap item for cloud and sandbox agents. **Additional context** The flow uses a five-minute cleanup reaper, compare-and-set status changes, and a PostgreSQL advisory lock to protect promotion and cleanup. ## What Changed - Add the adapter login-session contract, database table, and migration. - Add company-scoped server routes and a service for sandbox device login. - Add credential promotion, readiness checks, and cleanup after login. - Add restart-safe cleanup for abandoned login sandboxes. - Add sandbox login controls to the agent creation and edit forms. - Keep device-login and vendor identifiers out of public shared and adapter UI symbols. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local exec vitest run` passed with 310 tests at the submitted commit. - The server login route, service, and reaper tests passed with 45 tests at the submitted commit. - The agent form render tests passed with 26 tests at the submitted commit. - The public-symbol leak check passed at the submitted commit. - A live Daytona sign-in flow still requires confirmation by a user with a live sandbox. ## Risks The migration adds a new company-scoped table. A promotion or cleanup race could remove a credential or leave a sandbox active, so the service uses claims, compare-and-set transitions, and an advisory lock. The live Daytona flow needs operator confirmation because local tests do not provide a real browser sign-in. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution, extended reasoning. ## 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
|
7ea2068ef8 |
fix(files): only highlight accessible workspace file links (#11090)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task comments can contain references to files in project and execution workspaces. > - Paperclip detected path-shaped inline code and showed it as an actionable file chip. > - The UI did not first confirm that the current board session could open the file. > - Missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, and unsupported files therefore looked actionable and failed after a click. > - This pull request adds an issue-scoped availability check and promotes only confirmed files to chips. > - The benefit is that the task thread shows a file action only when that action can succeed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Task comments promoted path-shaped inline code to file chips before Paperclip checked the file. A chip could point to a missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, or non-previewable file. The action then failed after the user selected it. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must show a file chip only after the server confirms that the current board session can open the exact file reference. All other path-shaped text must stay ordinary inline code. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Add a task comment that contains inline code with a missing or inaccessible workspace path. 2. Open the task thread as a board user. 3. Observe that the path looks like an actionable file chip. 4. Select the chip and observe that the file cannot open. **Paperclip version or commit** `19be4cf927` and earlier. **Deployment mode** Local dev and self-hosted server. **Access context** Board user. ## What Changed - Added shared request, response, and validation contracts for batched workspace-file availability checks. - Added an issue-scoped server endpoint that resolves file references with company, issue, workspace, and preview-access checks. - Added bounded batch concurrency and tests for missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, unsupported, and available files. - Added an issue-scoped UI availability registry that deduplicates, batches, caches, and invalidates file checks. - Changed task-comment markdown rendering so only confirmed files get chip styling and file-viewer behavior. - Bound each chip to the exact workspace target that passed the availability check. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/workspace-file-resource.test.ts server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.availability.test.tsx ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts ui/src/lib/workspace-file-availability.test.ts` — 93 passed, 35 skipped. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — clean. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — all server and UI groups passed. One unchanged CLI test saw the run-injected static AWS credentials and expected only its local `AWS_PROFILE`. The same test passed, 8 of 8, after removing only `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` and `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY` from its process environment. ## Risks - File chips now appear after an asynchronous availability check, so path-shaped text can briefly render as inline code. - Availability results use the existing 30-second file-resource cache window. File-resource invalidation forces a new check. - The endpoint limits each request to 100 references and the client chunks larger sets. > 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 with GPT-5. The service did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. The agent used high-reasoning mode, repository tools, command execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have 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 - [ ] 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> |
||
|
scotttong
|
815e49bb7c | feat: make chat-style tasks the default experience (#11101) | ||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5da382fd59 |
feat(skills): require explicit merge modes (#10978)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents can select company skills and synchronize them to adapter runtimes > - The skill sync API replaced the complete selection without an explicit destructive choice > - Company package import also replaced conflicting skills by default > - These defaults could remove operator edits during setup and import reruns > - This pull request adds explicit assignment merge modes and safe package conflict handling > - The benefit is that reruns preserve operator work unless the caller explicitly requests replacement ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This change improves agent skill synchronization and company package import. **Subsystem affected** This is a cross-cutting change across the shared contracts, server, CLI, and UI. **Current behavior** Agent skill synchronization replaces the full desired skill set from a modeless request. Package import replaces a conflicting skill when the caller does not select a conflict mode. **Proposed behavior** Agent skill synchronization requires `add`, `remove`, or `replace`. Package import skips conflicts by default. Each imported skill reports whether it was created, renamed, replaced, or skipped. **Reason and benefit** Setup and import reruns must preserve operator edits by default. Explicit destructive modes make data loss less likely and make each outcome inspectable. **Breaking changes** Callers of the agent skill sync API must now send `mode`. Callers that need the former behavior must send `replace`. Package import now uses `skip` when `onConflict` is absent. ## What Changed - Added required `add`, `remove`, and `replace` modes to the shared agent skill sync contract. - Added actionable `422` validation for missing or invalid modes. - Updated first-party UI and CLI callers with explicit modes. - Changed package skill conflict handling to use `skip` by default. - Kept plugin-owned and built-in stock skill imports on explicit `replace`. - Added created, renamed, replaced, and skipped results to company imports. - Added regression coverage for merge modes and package conflict outcomes. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run:serialized` (128 suites passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` (20 tests passed) - Focused agent skill route, company skill service, portability, CLI, and UI tests passed. - GitHub CI passed build, typecheck, canary, all general and serialized test shards, all browser shards, policy, security, and final verification on commit `2cfbb3e4c5`. - Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - This change intentionally rejects modeless agent skill sync requests. - The safe package default can leave an existing skill unchanged where the old default overwrote it. - All first-party callers now select a mode. Regression tests cover each outcome. > 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-5.6-sol` through Codex. The runtime used agentic reasoning, tool use, code execution, and repository editing. The runtime did not expose the 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 - [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
|
35132af161 |
fix(config): preserve extensions and guard invalid repairs (#11005)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The CLI and server share a JSON configuration contract for local installations and worktrees. > - Existing config writes removed extension keys because Zod stripped unknown object properties. > - Invalid config files could also be replaced with defaults before an operator preserved the original bytes. > - Configuration updates must preserve operator edits and must not rewrite files when the effective value is unchanged. > - This pull request adds extension-preserving merges, guarded invalid-config repair, atomic writes, and focused regression tests. > - The benefit is safe setup and configuration reruns without data loss or unnecessary mtime changes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Known-field updates through the CLI or server removed unknown top-level and nested config keys. Non-interactive configure and onboard paths could replace a present but invalid config with defaults. **Expected behavior** Writers preserve extension keys, skip semantic no-op writes, and require explicit interactive confirmation before an invalid config is replaced. Repair preserves an exact collision-safe backup first. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Add an unknown top-level key and an unknown nested provider key to `config.json`. 2. Update a known field through the CLI or worktree config writer. 3. Observe that the extension keys are removed on the base branch. 4. Write invalid JSON and run configure or onboard without an interactive terminal. 5. Observe that the original file can be replaced without a durable invalid-file backup on the base branch. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at the pull request base commit. ## What Changed - Accept unknown properties at each extensible config object boundary while keeping every known field validated. - Merge known-field updates into the parsed source config and preserve only unknown extension data. - Warn about near-match key names without deleting or changing them. - Skip writes when the effective config is unchanged, which keeps file mtimes stable. - Write config changes through a temporary file, file sync, rename, and directory sync. - Distinguish a missing config from an invalid config in configure and onboard. - Back up invalid bytes as `config.json.invalid-N` and verify the source still matches that backup before repair. - Require interactive repair confirmation and reject non-interactive replacement with an actionable message. - Document the config preservation and repair behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/config-schema.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/config-store.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/configure-repair.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/configure.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts server/src/__tests__/config-file.test.ts server/src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID= AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY= VITEST_MAX_WORKERS=1 pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - Confirm all pull request checks are green on the latest commit. - Confirm Greptile reports 5/5 with no unresolved comments. ## Risks - Passthrough keeps misspelled keys. Near-match warnings make this visible without destructive cleanup. - Merge behavior must distinguish unknown extension keys from optional known keys. Schema-aware regression tests cover preservation and known-key deletion. - Repair must not overwrite bytes that changed after backup. The writer compares the current source with the selected backup before atomic replacement. - The change does not alter database schema, company scoping, or activity logging. > 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 model family. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
03cfad7ceb |
feat(apps): connect Notion through MCP OAuth (#11009)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps give agents governed access to external tools. > - The Apps gallery lists Notion, but the server required manually configured OAuth credentials. > - Notion's hosted MCP server supports OAuth discovery and dynamic client registration. > - Notion also requires HTTPS or a loopback HTTP redirect URI. > - This pull request adds a direct Notion MCP OAuth path with PKCE and reusable dynamic clients. > - It also adds the current Apps UI states for connect and reauthorization. > - The benefit is a secure Notion connection with no manual client credential setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Apps gallery, Apps connect route, OAuth token lifecycle, and managed MCP gateway. **Subsystem affected** `server/`, `packages/shared/`, `scripts/`, and `ui/`. **Current behavior** The Notion gallery cards are disabled. The server uses the classic Notion OAuth endpoints and requires operator-supplied client credentials. It does not register an OAuth client from provider metadata. Concurrent refreshes can also replay a rotating refresh token. **Proposed behavior** Enable the Notion Apps flow. Discover OAuth metadata from `https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`. Register and reuse a public RFC 7591 client with PKCE. Require HTTPS or loopback HTTP callbacks. Serialize refreshes, store each rotated refresh token before the new access token can be used, and show a reconnect state for `invalid_grant`. **Reason and benefit** Operators can connect the built-in Notion MCP app without creating or copying OAuth credentials. Paperclip keeps dynamic clients and rotating tokens in the company secret store. **Breaking changes** None. Explicit environment client credentials still take priority. Existing Slack and Linear OAuth endpoint hints remain unchanged. Other OAuth apps remain disabled unless they are allowlisted. **Additional context** PR #10910 is a related, broader Connections v3 wizard replacement. This PR is the focused current Apps flow. The MCP Tool Gateway and Connected Apps items in `ROADMAP.md` cover this planned capability. ## What Changed - Classify all 20 reviewed Notion MCP tools with provider-scoped read and write defaults. - Require approval for selected Notion mutations, including move, duplicate, and convert actions that generic verb matching missed. - Preserve company-scoped connection and catalog resolution for Notion profiles and policies. - Add RFC 7591 dynamic client registration with `token_endpoint_auth_method=none` and mandatory PKCE. - Store the dynamic client ID on the connection and store any returned client secret in the company secret store. - Reuse the registered client for later connects and keep explicit environment credentials as the first choice. - Discover protected-resource and authorization-server metadata from the Notion MCP endpoint. - Add `redirectConstraints: "https-or-loopback-http"` to the generated Notion app definition and shared contract. - Reject non-loopback plain HTTP callbacks before network access with a TLS setup error. - Serialize client registration and token refresh operations within the server process. - Store a rotated refresh token before publishing the refreshed access token. - Treat `invalid_grant` as terminal and move the connection to a clear reauthorization state. - Add focused coverage for registration reuse, callback constraints, refresh rotation, and terminal grants. - Enable the Notion Apps route and add connect, redirect, success, error, and reconnect UI states. - Keep non-allowlisted OAuth apps blocked and cover the UI policy with regression tests. ## Verification - The focused Notion policy integration test passed with embedded PostgreSQL. - The focused 20-tool classification test passed. - The server typecheck passed on the governance head. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the rebased head. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the security follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t \u0027DCR|refresh tokens|invalid_grant|abandoned lease\u0027` passed 10 focused security tests. - `pnpm build` passed on the rebased head. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t 'OAuth|oauth'` passed 14 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts` passed 5 tests. - The complete server group passed 3,686 tests with 4 skipped. - The complete UI group passed 3,656 tests. - The full local runner found one environment-only CLI failure because this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials into a test that expects `AWS_PROFILE` only. `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` passed all 8 tests. - The prior UI verification passed 55 focused tests, `pnpm check:token-gates`, the Storybook build, and review of six 1440 x 1000 screenshots. - OAuth request sequence: protected-resource metadata `GET https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp`; authorization metadata `GET https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server`; dynamic registration `POST https://mcp.notion.com/register`; authorization `GET https://mcp.notion.com/authorize`; token exchange and refresh `POST https://mcp.notion.com/token`; MCP traffic `POST https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`. - The live metadata and registration probe confirmed that Notion accepts HTTPS and loopback HTTP redirects. It rejects a plain HTTP private hostname. - A later QA task owns the full browser consent and managed gateway tool-list dry run against a configured HTTPS deployment. ## Risks - Notion can add tools. Unrecognized names use the generic classifier, and new or changed risky tools stay quarantined after connection activation. - A deployment that uses a private non-loopback hostname must configure HTTPS before it can connect Notion. - Dynamic registration creates a provider-side client. Paperclip reuses it because registration does not provide a standard delete operation. - Refresh coordination uses a database CAS lease across service instances. An unclean crash leaves an uncertain lease and requires reconnect instead of risking refresh-token replay. - The current Apps surface overlaps with PR #10910. Merge order can require a small conflict resolution if that PR lands first. > 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 on a GPT-5 runtime. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed. The runtime used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and network tools. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f554d67377 |
fix(server): add explicit review verdict policies (#10931)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an authorized writer > - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule > - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not represent the configured execution-stage rules > - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints for teams that require an independent or human verdict > - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies > - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated verdict controls ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10635, #4429, and #10671. The related public work covers execution-stage independence, self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It keeps configured execution stages active. ## What Changed - Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues. - Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for `in_review` issues. - Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and pending interaction accept or reject actions. - Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and run tokens remain agent principals. - Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester for `not_creator`. - Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed actor, and the next step. - Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior. - Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and execution-stage regression tests. - Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes. - Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or follow-ups. - The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external security checks. ## Risks - The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no backfill. - `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`. It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester. - Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write access. This is intentional for this issue-level control. - Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path. - Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level policy check. > This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and "Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub CLI access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
e43f187cad |
feat(secrets): add human-approved secret proposals (#9934)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Agents can encounter credentials during work. > - Directly creating live secrets or bindings would bypass human governance. > - Proposal records must remain inert and separate from live secret resolution until an authorized human approves them. > - Approval must reuse the existing secret-create and protected agent-config write paths. > - This pull request adds the propose, review, approve, and reject lifecycle. > - The benefit is that agents can safely hand credentials into Paperclip without exposing plaintext or gaining authority to activate them. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-on to #9921, which established run-bound agent secret access. **Problem / motivation:** Agents can receive credentials during work. There is no governed way for them to propose a credential or binding without exposing plaintext in work artifacts or immediately creating live access. **Proposed solution:** Store agent-authored proposals outside live secret tables. Encrypt each proposed value and register exact-value redaction when Paperclip receives it. Require an authorized human to approve or reject each proposal. Approval executes through the normal write paths as the human approver. Binding proposals can target only the proposer or its downward reporting chain under the restrictive V1 policy. **Alternatives considered:** We rejected live secrets with a `proposed` status. That design would put untrusted rows in resolver, list, and sync paths. It would also allow uniqueness squatting. We rejected direct agent binding writes because a binding is an agent-config write and must keep the existing human permission gate. **Roadmap alignment:** This change extends the run-bound agent secret-access foundation in #9921 with a governed proposal workflow. ## Security Verdict Q0 SecEng verdict: **PASS-with-required-changes**. The review accepted the separate proposal-table design and required the implementation to: - fail closed unless both encryption and exact-value run redaction registration succeed; - scrub ciphertext idempotently on reject, withdraw, and expiry, with audit-visible state; - treat agent justification as hostile input and foreground action, target, provenance, and approver permissions; - snapshot and re-check the target agent plus reports-to chain at approval to prevent org-chart laundering; - make cascade approval atomic and fail closed if either secret creation or binding authorization fails; - deny low-trust, `skill_test`, `task_bridge`, and non-run-bound sources consistently; and - execute approval through the normal human secret/config write paths, including protected-change gates. Those requirements are implemented and covered by focused service, route, and UI tests. Residual V1 risk remains the accepted 14-day encrypted retention window. Proposal-time redaction also cannot clean a value that leaked before the propose call. ## What Changed - Added `company_secret_proposals`, migration `0207`, shared proposal contracts, and a state-machine service for create, approve, reject, withdraw, cascade, expiry, and ciphertext scrubbing. - Added run-bound agent proposal routes and board review routes. The routes derive provenance from authentication and enforce source restrictions, company isolation, chain-of-command checks, approval-as-approver, wake-on-resolution, and dual audit trails. - Added durable per-run exact-value redaction registration so proposal values remain redacted on later read surfaces. - Added the Secrets **Proposals** tab and agent configuration **Proposed access** rows. The UI shows fingerprint and length only. It also frames agent justification as untrusted input, runs permission preflight, supports approve and reject actions, and confirms cascades. - Updated OpenAPI, agent skill guidance, API reference documentation, and focused server and UI regression coverage. - Rebased the branch onto current `master` and renumbered the proposal migration after `0206`. ## QA Acceptance Results Q5 QA verdict: **PASS — 9/9 acceptance criteria met**, with one Minor non-blocking follow-up. - **AC1:** proposed values never echo, never appear in live lists/resolvers, and expose only fingerprint + length to board reviewers. - **AC2:** restrictive `self_and_reports` matrix passes: self/downward allowed; upward/lateral denied. - **AC3:** secret approval uses the normal create path, honors rename overrides, records proposer/approver provenance, and scrubs ciphertext. - **AC4:** approved bindings materialize and resolve through the target agent's runtime list/fetch routes. - **AC5:** pending-secret bindings require cascade; cascade succeeds atomically and permission failures leave nothing applied. - **AC6:** reject, withdraw, dependent rejection, and expiry paths scrub ciphertext and preserve reasons/audit state. - **AC7:** token/source and approver denial matrix passes through live checks plus focused route tests. - **AC8:** proposal lifecycle events and reused `secret.created`/config-write events form the required dual audit trail; origin-issue notification and wake are queued. - **AC9:** both review surfaces render and execute correctly; UI approval materializes the binding. QA also confirmed zero plaintext occurrences for all exercised proposal values in server logs. The single finding is that the company-level `bindingTargetPolicy` toggle is not wired yet. V1 is hardcoded to the restrictive `self_and_reports` policy. The matrix is correct and the follow-up is tracked separately, so QA classified it as non-blocking. ## Verification - Focused server proposal and redaction suite: 83 tests pass. - Focused proposal review UI suite: 54 tests pass. - Embedded-Postgres migration reapply test: 1 test passes with the documented 30-second timeout. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passes, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes with all gates clean. - Q5 exercised the complete propose, review, approve, bind, and runtime-resolve flow over real HTTP, JWT, and database paths. It verified 9/9 acceptance criteria. ## Risks - Proposal ciphertext is retained encrypted for up to 14 days while pending. Terminal-state and expiry scrub paths reduce but do not remove server-compromise risk during that window. - The V1 target policy is restrictive but not yet company-configurable. A separate follow-up owns that change. - A new migration can require another renumber if another migration lands before maintainers merge this pull request. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed. The agent used reasoning, repository editing, terminal execution, Paperclip API, and GitHub CLI capabilities. Q3 UI work also records Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in its commit trailers. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
72b509c895 |
Recognize delivered workspaces and reap terminal worktrees (#10908)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip separates workspace provisioning lifecycle from whether the work was actually delivered. > - Git ancestry alone cannot recognize squash merges or deliveries into a branch other than the workspace base. > - A merged pull request linked from a terminal issue is stronger delivery evidence for those cases. > - The read contract should expose that evidence without changing persisted workspace schema. > - Cleanup must remain conservative: terminal descendants, delivered work, and no active run checkout are all required. > - Reusing the existing cleanup primitives keeps service shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival behavior consistent. > - Focused regression coverage locks in both the honest read signal and the fail-closed reaper guards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Execution workspace close-readiness payloads and terminal workspace cleanup. **Current behavior** Delivered squash-merged or cross-branch workspaces can remain `active` and report a permanent “not merged” warning because git ancestry does not contain their original commits. **Proposed behavior** Read payloads distinguish PR-confirmed delivery, ancestry delivery, unmerged work, and unknown state. Fully terminal delivered workspace trees are archived only when no active run holds the checkout. **Reason and benefit** Operators and automation receive an honest delivery signal, while shipped worktrees stop looking active forever and genuinely unmerged work retains its warning. **Breaking changes** The workspace payload gains a derived field. Existing fields and persistence remain unchanged; no database migration is required. **What happened?** A delivered workspace can remain `active` and warn that it is not merged forever after its issue ships through a squash or cross-branch pull request. **Expected behavior** Pull-request delivery should be represented honestly, and a fully terminal delivered workspace should become cleanup-eligible when no run holds its checkout. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an issue workspace with commits ahead of its configured base. 2. Deliver those commits with a squash merge or into a different target branch. 3. Mark the source issue and descendants done, then read workspace close readiness. Before this change, the workspace remains active with a “not merged” warning indefinitely. ## What Changed - Added the derived `deliveryState` workspace contract: `merged_via_pr`, `merged_by_ancestry`, `unmerged`, or `unknown`. - Extracted a shared GitHub pull-request merge classifier and reused it for merge confirmations and workspace delivery checks. - Suppressed false ancestry warnings when a terminal issue has ground-truth merged-PR evidence. - Added an idempotent terminality reaper with descendant-terminal, active-run, and delivered-work guards. - Restricted PR delivery evidence to the source issue, then required live merged state plus matching GitHub repository, head branch, and current workspace HEAD; persisted status, stale PRs, lexical mentions, inbound references, and descendant PRs cannot authorize cleanup. - Preserved workspaces with modified or untracked files even when their committed HEAD was delivered. - Bounded both long-lived pull-request state caches to 1,000 entries with oldest-entry eviction. - Routed eligible workspaces through existing runtime shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival machinery with exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks plus non-forced removal. - Added regression coverage for delivery derivation, warning behavior, reaper guards, scheduler wiring, and squash/cross-branch delivery. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 63 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts --reporter=verbose` after review hardening — 43 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts --reporter=dot` on the final local head — 73 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 15 passed - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` — server 3,662 passed (4 skipped), UI 3,599 passed, CLI 327 passed, shared 415 passed, and skills catalog 20 passed; the aggregate DB stage ran both source and built copies of one unrelated embedded-Postgres migration test and both reached its 5-second timeout - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/status-card-migrations.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — isolated aggregate-timeout verification passed in 3.99 seconds - `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks The reaper intentionally fails closed when issue terminality, pull-request state, git ancestry, or checkout ownership cannot be proven. GitHub lookups can delay classification and cleanup but cannot cause an unproven workspace to be archived. Automated terminal archival holds exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks across validation and removal, skips configured destructive hooks, and uses non-forced removal so dirty writes fail closed. Reopening a source issue does not restore an archived workspace; it emits an audit event so a human or agent can re-provision explicitly. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test execution, and GitHub CLI access were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6ffe9df842 |
fix(auth): clarify protected-agent assignment blocks (#10893)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task assignment policies control which agents can receive work. > - Protected-agent policy flags currently stop assignment. > - The existing error says that the assignment requires approval. > - Paperclip has no approval workflow for this policy. > - This pull request models the policy as a hard block and gives the operator an action that exists. > - The benefit is accurate API guidance without weakening the existing fail-closed behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #6386 **What happened?** A protected-agent assignment denial said that approval was required. No approval record or approval action existed for this policy, so the message sent agents and operators to a dead end. **Expected behavior** The authorization result must state that protected-agent policy blocks assignment. It must tell a company administrator to remove the block before retrying. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Set `authorizationPolicy.protectedAgent.requiresApproval` to `true` on a target agent. 2. Give another agent the `tasks:assign` permission. 3. Preview or attempt assignment to the protected agent. 4. Observe that the old response promises an approval step that does not exist. **Paperclip version or commit** `c54936e2e9` on `master`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. The behavior is in the core authorization service and is not deployment-specific. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. ## What Changed - Added canonical `protectedAgent.blockAssignment` and `protectedAgent.blockReason` policy fields. - Kept the legacy approval-named flags as fail-closed compatibility aliases. - Changed denial copy to name the hard block and the administrator action. - Added authorization and plugin-host regression coverage for canonical and legacy policy data. - Updated the V1 implementation contract with the protected-assignment rule. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts` — 2 files passed, 61 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed. The repository-wide local wrappers exceeded the execution host resource limit before they printed a final summary. The PR check loop will use GitHub CI as the complete test and build authority. ## Risks - Low: assignment remains fail-closed. The change corrects the policy name and denial guidance. - Low: legacy fields remain supported, so existing plugin-owned policy data does not change behavior. - Low: the new policy schemas allow unknown keys for forward compatibility, as the existing authorization policy schema already does. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5`, tool-enabled coding agent with reasoning, shell, Git, and GitHub CLI access. The runtime does not expose the 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 - [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
|
ef33c1d9ed |
fix(decisions): retire completed-target decisions and link targets from the card (#10892)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The decisions desk shows pending decisions that need an operator response > - A strict decision cannot apply its effects after its target task changes > - A decision still remained pending when every target task finished after proposal > - The card also linked only the origin task, even when the decision acted on another task > - This pull request expires those moot decisions and links their target tasks > - The benefit is an accurate queue and a clear path to the work that each decision affects ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related PR: #10801 removes the issue-page decision strip, which makes clear queue provenance more important. **What happened?** A strict decision stayed pending until its time-to-live limit after every target task reached `done`. The decision card linked only the origin task. The origin task is where the agent proposed the decision, and it can differ from the task that the decision affects. An operator could therefore open a finished task with no visible decision and no explanation of the real target. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must expire a strict decision when all of its targets finish after the decision is proposed. The card must show and link every target task that differs from the origin task. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a strict decision that targets an active task from a different origin task. 2. Move the target task to `done` without resolving the decision. 3. Run the decision expiry sweep. 4. Observe that the old code keeps the decision open until its time-to-live limit. 5. Observe that the old card links only the origin task. **Paperclip version or commit** The bug reproduces on upstream `master` before this pull request. **Deployment mode** Local dev and self-hosted server modes are affected because the behavior is in the shared decision service and board UI. ## What Changed - Expire an open strict decision with reason `target_completed` when every strict target reached `done` after proposal. - Keep decisions that intentionally target an already-finished task. - Keep lenient-only decisions open. - Keep continuation delivery consistent with other expiry reasons. - Add target-task links to the decision card provenance line. - Use one shared target-ID helper across signing, execution, expiry, card provenance, and resolver preloading. - Add service and UI regression tests for primary, secondary, and target-completed cases. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/DecisionCard.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` — 51 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Low migration risk. This change does not alter the database schema. - The expiry sweep performs the existing strict-target query and adds a snapshot comparison before expiry. - A decision remains open if any strict target is active or if a target was already `done` at proposal time. > The roadmap lists work queues as planned. This pull request fixes the existing decisions desk. It does not add a new queue subsystem. ## Model Used - Implementation: Anthropic Claude through Claude Code. The runtime did not expose the exact model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. - PR preparation: OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have 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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5
|
e8ae5286eb |
feat(issues): explain cross-task agent writes with attribution, audit receipts, and actionable denials (#10843)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents write to tasks they do not own. They comment, they change
fields, and the control plane now permits this by default for
standard-trust agents on any task they can read
> - This makes a task thread ambiguous. A reader sees a comment from an
agent that is not the assignee, but no surface says whose authority that
write rode
> - The same gap applies to field edits. The activity stream named the
verb, but it did not show the before value, the after value, or the
reason the write was permitted
> - The remaining refusals are also opaque. An agent that hits a wall
receives a 403 with no boundary name, no actor who can act, and no
sanctioned path. One real incident spent a full detour to find the
workaround
> - This pull request adds the three surfaces that make open cross-task
writes legible: an attribution chip, a field-level audit receipt, and an
actionable denial contract shared by the API and the UI
> - The benefit is that a reader can answer "who did this, on whose
authority, and was it allowed?" on the task itself, and a blocked writer
is told what to do next
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this work, so the enhancement is described
here.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Cross-task agent writes are permitted, but they are not explained. A
task thread can hold comments from agents that are not the assignee, and
the activity stream can hold field changes made by those agents. Neither
surface names the responsible user behind the write. When a write is
refused, the error text does not name the boundary or the way forward.
**Subsystem affected**
Issue detail UI (comment thread and activity stream), the issue write
authorization responses in the server, and the shared copy contract that
both consume.
**Current behavior**
- An agent comment on a task the agent does not own looks the same as an
assignee comment.
- An `issue.updated` activity row states the verb only. It does not show
the field-level before and after values, the responsible user, or the
authorization reason.
- A refused write returns a short message such as an ownership error.
The message does not state which rule fired, who is able to perform the
action, or which alternative path is sanctioned.
**Proposed behavior**
- An agent comment on a task the agent does not own carries a chip that
reads "for {user}". The chip names the responsible user. Its tooltip
states that the author is not the assignee and cannot exceed that user's
permissions.
- Each `issue.updated` row shows a receipt: the changed fields with
before and after values, the responsible user, and the authorization
reason. This applies to board edits as well as agent edits.
- Each refusal states three things: the boundary that fired, who is able
to act, and the sanctioned path. The API error body and the in-app
notice use the same words, because both read one shared contract.
Related pull requests, found by searching this repository:
- Refs #10837 — merged. It added the default-open cross-task write rule,
the comment attribution data, and the per-run containment cap that this
pull request makes visible.
- Refs #10114 — open. It proposes a narrower authorization change in the
same area.
- Refs #7998 — open. It proposes append-only cross-assignee comments as
an alternative to opening writes.
## What Changed
- Adds `packages/shared/src/issue-write-denial.ts`. This is one copy
contract for eight ways an issue write can be refused: not visible,
responsible-user ceiling, responsible user unavailable, excluded actor
class, assignee run lock, per-run cross-task cap, missing run context,
and rejected attribution. Each entry names the boundary, who can act,
and the sanctioned path.
- Maps server authorization decisions onto that contract in
`server/src/routes/issues.ts` and
`server/src/services/cross-issue-influence-limit.ts`. The flattened
`error` string carries all three obligations, and `details.code` lets
the UI render the same words. The two cap codes keep the names they
already ship under.
- Adds `CommentAttributionChip`. It renders "for {user}" beside the
author name on agent comments where the author is not the assignee. It
renders nothing when no responsible user is recorded, so older rows stay
clean. It is wired into both `IssueChatThread` and the flagged
`TaskChatThread` redesign.
- Adds `IssueFieldChangeReceipt`. It renders the change receipt under
`issue.updated` rows in the activity stream. Ids resolve to agent and
user names where the directory is loaded. Server-truncated text is
labelled as a preview, so the receipt never implies that it shows a
whole value.
- Adds `IssueWriteDenialNotice`. It renders the shared copy in the app,
keyed off the denial events the server logs on a task.
- Adds a public `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration` page. It renders all
three surfaces and their edge cases for review without a seeded thread.
This follows the existing `ux-lab` pages.
## Verification
Automated, all green:
```
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run src/issue-write-denial.test.ts # 17 tests
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueWriteDenialNotice.test.tsx \
src/components/IssueFieldChangeReceipt.test.tsx src/components/CommentAttributionChip.test.tsx \
src/lib/issue-change-receipt.test.ts src/lib/comment-attribution.test.ts # 46 tests
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts \
src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts \
src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts \
src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts # 98 tests
```
`tsc --noEmit` passes for the shared, ui, and server packages.
Manual, in a browser:
1. Start the UI only: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vite`.
2. Open `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration`. No session is needed,
because `ux-lab` routes are public.
3. All three surfaces were captured at 1440x900 in light mode and dark
mode, and at 390x844. The page reported no errors.
4. The chip tooltip was opened by a hover and by a keyboard focus.
Rendering the page found defects that the tests had missed. Three copy
and contrast defects were fixed, and two of them are now pinned by a
test. A design review then found three layout defects, which are also
fixed: the denial notice orphaned its label when a value wrapped, the
receipt icon wrapped onto its own line at narrow widths, and the chip
tooltip was reachable by hover only.
## Risks
Low risk, and additive.
- Every new surface renders nothing when its data is absent. Comments
without a recorded responsible user show no chip, and activity events
without a receipt show no receipt, so existing rows do not change.
- No migration is included. The data these surfaces read already ships.
- The wire values of the two per-run cap denial codes are unchanged.
Only the human-readable text changes, plus six codes that had no
`details.code` before.
- The denial copy is read by agents as well as people. If wording must
change later, one shared module is the only place to change it.
- Roadmap check: this extends the completed "Activity log & action
attribution" area rather than duplicating planned core work.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5[1m]`, 1M context
window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. It ran as
an agent in Claude Code and drove a real browser to capture the review
screenshots.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
|
678728f650 |
feat: maintained in_review review-path contract + stalled-review actions (#10675)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them who decides next. > - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody reviewing it and no visible action. > - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is owed, so the work stalls forever. > - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant, exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review three inline actions in the UI. > - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is internal. **Subsystem affected** The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the `in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions attention feed, and the issue-page review panel. **Problem or motivation** Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted. A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie and the work never progresses. **Proposed solution** Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a `reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into `in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never renders empty. **Alternatives considered** A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the stall. **Roadmap alignment** This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and humans use every day. ## What Changed - **Server — maintained review-path invariant:** when an issue enters or sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path (interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless. - **Server — `reviewAttention` surface:** a new field describes what is under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now included in the attention feed. - **Server — inline stalled-review decisions:** secured routes let a permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from the attention feed. - **Server — resume-intent wake:** an `in_review -> todo` transition now wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped. - **Server — user-entry symmetry:** user PATCHes into `in_review` stay ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes the named responder when no other path exists. - **UI — review panel:** a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus the three actions. - **UI — decisions card actions:** the same three actions render inline on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`. - **UI — responsive fix:** the stalled action row stacks to full-width buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up. New 390px stories capture the phone layout. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass. - Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`, `issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`, `recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI). - A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the horizontal row on desktop. ## Risks - **Migration:** adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive. - **Behavioral shift:** `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests. - **Authz:** the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions. - Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention loop. ## Model Used - Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] 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> |
