mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-23 17:33:51 +02:00
572bef4ba7679451ac1543db25cb8ebd533bf919
7
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
2c96f76780 |
feat(connections): add model-backed prompt injection prevention
Add opt-in OpenRouter checks at existing tool-result boundaries with regex fallback, service accounting, and settings on Connections. Make migration 0362 safe to replay over existing or partially applied schema state. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
cad26c6bfb |
fix(tool-gateway): bound MCP discovery memory and concurrency (#14864)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents discover governed tools through the MCP gateway. > - A listing repeated policy and full run-row reads for each catalog tool. > - Parallel listings multiplied those allocations during run startup. > - One 900-tool baseline listing used 11,489 queries and about 1.7 GiB of extra heap in a fixture. > - This pull request shares reads within a listing and bounds whole listings across the process. > - The benefit is lower discovery memory use while execution still checks current policy. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13115. Its on-demand target change affects the same listing loop. **What happened?** MCP discovery repeated roughly 13 reads per tool. Full run snapshots and repeated connection configurations caused large allocations. Per-listing bounds alone did not limit concurrent listings across gateways. **Expected behavior** Discovery reads shared inputs once per listing. The process bounds active and queued listings. Catalog payload size and policy evaluation still grow with the catalog. Tool execution checks current access rules. **Steps to reproduce** Create a company with a remote MCP connection, 900 catalog tools, large schemas, and a large run snapshot. Send concurrent tools/list requests using a run-bound gateway token. Run the committed benchmark for a deterministic reproduction. **Paperclip version or commit** Baseline: |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
18dac1e1ef |
feat(connections): add experimental memory providers and remote MCP access (#13942)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Connections give agents governed access to external tools. > - Agents need durable memory across tasks and execution environments. > - Mem0, Zep, Supermemory, Cognee, and Honcho provide hosted memory tools. > - This pull request adds their setup flows behind an experimental toggle. > - It also delivers assigned MCP tools through the native remote Codex runner. > - Operators can connect a provider once and use the same governed tools locally or in Daytona. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** The Apps catalog lacks a complete set of memory providers. Remote native Codex agents also need access to assigned managed MCP tools without receiving provider credentials. **Proposed solution** Add five memory connectors behind the disabled-by-default Experimental memory connectors setting. Use the existing connection setup and permissions UI. Default their tools to Allowed. Preserve company boundaries, operator permission changes, provider scopes, and audit attribution. **Alternatives considered** Direct provider credentials in each sandbox would duplicate setup and bypass the managed gateway. The remote runner instead uses its existing protocol channel to call the gateway on the server. **Roadmap alignment** This maintainer-requested experiment supports the Memory / Knowledge and Connected Apps roadmap areas. It adds provider connections without introducing a separate memory UI. Related connector authoring documentation is tracked in #13692; no duplicate memory-provider implementation was found. ## What Changed - Add provider definitions, official branding, and the experimental setting for all five providers. - Use OAuth for Zep and Supermemory, API credentials for Mem0 and Honcho, and a bundled Cloud API bridge for Cognee with no runtime downloads or subprocesses. - Default memory tools to Allowed and classify destructive actions explicitly. - Fix personal remote credential resolution and propagate provider tool errors. - Relay assigned managed MCP tools to remote native Codex through the runner protocol. Recheck current authority for each call and rotate stale tool contracts. - Add 21 Storybook states and complete OAuth walkthrough fixtures. - Document provider research, sanitized tool inventory, and live local and Daytona proof. ## Verification - Passed workspace typecheck: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Passed production build: `pnpm build`. - Full local `pnpm test:run`: 13,273 passed, with failures from process/readiness timeouts under parallel load. Reran all 16 affected suites with one worker: 456 passed, leaving two macOS `/var` versus `/private/var` path assertions. Both passed with `TMPDIR=/private/tmp`. No test failures remain unverified. Latest-head remote CI passes all 54 checks (two optional Storybook jobs skipped). Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Latest Cognee gateway regression: 71 passed, including public deployment without a runtime host and immediate recovery after a provider error. Bundled bridge tests: 25 passed. - Browser setup and real agent tasks exercised all five providers. Mem0, Cognee, Zep, and Honcho have successful store/retrieve proof. - Supermemory now has scoped read/write consent. Local storage and real Daytona write, document read, and semantic recall passed; indexing completion was verified before claiming success. - All five providers were exercised through a real Daytona sandbox and its native runner MCP relay. Provider credentials remained on the server. The final bundled Cognee bridge also passed a fresh Daytona store/recall run. All disposable sandboxes were removed and verified absent after testing. - Storybook is rebuilt and contains the experimental toggle, catalog, setup, permissions, and error states. The Zep and Supermemory access steps advance correctly. ## Risks - Provider OAuth scopes and plan limits remain independent of Paperclip tool permissions. An Allowed tool can still be rejected by the provider. - Providers can queue memory indexing; save acceptance does not prove that semantic recall is ready. - Remote tool contracts must stay synchronized with current connection authority. Regression tests cover revocation and stale contracts. - This change has no database migration. Existing connections remain usable when the experimental catalog toggle is disabled. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, repository edits, code execution, and browser automation. The exact context window size is not exposed in this session. Live acceptance agents used `gpt-5.6-sol`. ## 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
|
e200104727 |
feat: review connection actions from tasks (#13063)
Bring governed connection reviews into task history and composer approvals. Share resolution with Connections, add scoped remembered permissions, and resume agents through durable outcome receipts. Keep cards compact, collapse raw results, isolate untrusted provider output, bound continuation payloads, and reconcile missed live events. Add Storybook coverage, browser journeys, and service regression tests. Verification: all PR CI gates passed, Greptile 5/5, security scans passed, five connection-review browser journeys passed, and real native Codex approval/continuation was verified against the local MCP fixture. 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b51112798f |
feat(apps): improve gateway and workspace connection UX (#12340)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - App connections must work in both the operator UI and agent tool gateway. > - The first stack layer adds secure remote connections. > - Operators still need clear setup, test, and recovery states. > - This pull request adds the gateway behavior and the workspace connection experience. > - The benefit is a connection flow that is easier to understand and recover. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 2 of 11. It depends on stack 1 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Improve remote tool gateway connection behavior. - Add clearer app setup, test, and recovery states. - Add focused server and UI tests for the new paths. - Keep the diff isolated from later identity and catalog work. - Stabilize DNS-pinned remote HTTP protocol fixtures and the managed-runtime public-origin fixture for this independently tested layer. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` (150 passed) - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Gateway errors now surface through new user-facing states. - A stale connection can require a new setup attempt. - The change does not add a database migration. - The injected HTTP transport and public URL are test-only fixtures; production DNS pinning and runtime behavior are unchanged. > 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 - [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
|
931eec3fbf |
feat(mcp) [split 4/8]: wire gateway runtime and Smoke Lab (#9559)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 4/8 and focuses on gateway runtime, Smoke Lab, plugins, and server wiring > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The policy core needs runtime execution, endpoint guards, route registration, heartbeat integration, and adapter MCP injection to become operational. - Proposed solution: Adds the remaining server routes/wiring/consumers, runtime tests, adapter-utils MCP contracts, and Claude/Codex injection implementations required by the server layer. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/03-server-tool-access`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: SecurityEngineer for gateway, endpoint guard, token issuance, and runtime wiring; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds the remaining server routes/wiring/consumers, runtime tests, adapter-utils MCP contracts, and Claude/Codex injection implementations required by the server layer. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - Changed server test set — 26 files, 382 tests passed - Affected server adapter tests — 38 tests passed after concrete adapter boundary move - Adapter-utils and Codex focused tests — 76 tests passed ## Risks - Remote endpoint validation, token handling, and runtime supervision are security-sensitive and can fail closed or deny legitimate access if misconfigured. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > 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-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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 - [ ] 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |