PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-29 21:07:40 +01:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	77295faebc	fix(server): recover approved tool actions from committed changes (#17454 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and its governed tool calls. > - A human approval can persist before the approving process dispatches the tool. > - Recovery currently scans approved requests on every maintenance tick. > - Completed and deliberately inert approvals do not owe another execution. > - Test-tab approval also needs a shared execution claim before recovery can safely race the foreground path. > - This PR wakes recovery from committed changes and retries only unresolved approvals. > - Idle history becomes quiet while existing approval and execution checks remain with the gateway. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17453. This is the fifth slice of the recurring-server sleep migration, stacked on `codex/sleep-04-tool-review-expiry`. Problem Approved tool requests are scanned periodically even when no executable work remains. The Test-tab foreground path lacks the request claim needed to admit concurrent recovery safely. Proposed Solution Use the existing transaction-aware review notification boundary and shared deadline worker. Keep signed-payload interpretation, current policy and target checks, and provider dispatch in the gateway. Share a claim between Test-tab foreground and recovery, then persist both authoritative outcome rows atomically. Alternatives Considered A longer interval still scans idle history. A new durable queue would duplicate existing request/invocation state. Dispatching Test-tab approvals without a claim risks duplicate external calls. ## What Changed - Recheck both principals for delegated Test-tab approvals. Save their rate receipts in the same claim transaction, share only the same bucket, and roll back new charges on denial. - Preserve delegated gateway authorization and both issuer/target rate receipts inside the existing claimed-invocation transaction; retain the durable actor during approved replay. - Expire stale managed connector payloads before consuming approved-tool admission. - Persist current rate-policy charges and their invocation receipts atomically before dispatch, preserving exact approval claim fencing and read-only preflight. - Recover approved requests at startup and after committed review changes; retry only unresolved approvals. - Leave legacy agent approvals without execute-on-approve intent inert. Repair completed Test-tab history without another provider call. - Fence Test-tab execution and outcome settlement with an atomic claim shared by both callers. Revalidate the approved target and current policy before dispatch. - Keep provider calls outside database transactions. Retain quarantine for interrupted execution and unknown outcomes. - Add a concurrent, idempotent partial index for approved-request pagination. Reuse the parent's company-scoped review signals and shared scoped deadline worker. - Remove approved scanning from the aggregate tick. Preserve the public combined sweep and scheduler-disabled startup behavior. - Document producer ownership, quiet states, lifecycle behavior, and remaining recovery duties. ## Verification Latest published head: `23868c1751c100a27f58087f7ce16b93c52d4eba`, targeting master. The review-found delegated gateway pool deadlock is repaired by passing the admission transaction through token and issuer-authority reads. Foreground and recovery each reproduced the deadlock with a one-connection pool; all three constrained-pool cases, including revoked authority, now pass. All 81 HTTP integration cases pass. The historical foreground rate-slot regression also reproduced before its repair; verified preview hashes are accepted only by read-only preflight, while consuming admission still requires the complete identity under the exact claim. Five full suites passed 329 cases; the gateway service then passed all 141 cases after two additional mixed historical hash controls. Production types/build passed before the final normal integration of master `35820cf398` (including independent Grok/Runner changes); integration validation is running. Initial fixture/assertion errors and the prior E2E restoration/cancellation deadlock remain recorded in [the owning audit](doc/idle-approved-tool-recovery.md#gateway-admission-uses-its-transaction-connection). Fresh-head CI, Greptile 5/5, and passing Ponytail are still required before merge. - Master landing reconciliation at `8dfe3958db6e4e8a0b7499f3f5be0a396ca77361` after #17453 merged: production and server test files are byte-identical to the accepted 320-case repair. The landed migration journal prefix is unchanged, and #17928's independent eval reporting changes are preserved. Fresh CI and reviews on this exact head are required before merge. - Historical-identity repair published at `096b7c7198c3ca864aca9377e261cbaa0a8aad6f` (production/test source identical to integrated acceptance `81231824d773a79fc50c835eccf7d9b3977e79fc`): all 320 accepted gateway, policy, startup, preparation-timing and authenticated HTTP management cases pass. Server types and the production server build pass. Four real historical sensitive-argument regressions failed before repair; invalid-signature, foreign-hash and stale-claim controls remain denied without dispatch or identity changes. Both agent and Test-tab calls deliver the original signed arguments once, and new rate policies still apply. - The first integrated combined run passed 319 cases and hit a Slack bot ownership collision left in a reused HTTP test database. The guard correctly returned 409. The full 78-case HTTP suite passed on a fresh dedicated fixture without product or assertion changes. Earlier fixture-construction errors are distinguished from the four real regressions in the audit document. Fresh remote CI and reviews remain required. - Parent reconciliation at `736e7f56097055e21ce13b4e45d9033391483af8`: 299 cases pass (221 full gateway/policy/startup cases and 78 assembled-server connection management cases), with no skipped cases. Server types pass. This includes real delegated Test-tab approval admission for newly added shared and caller rate rules. Fresh remote CI and Greptile review remain required. Approved delegated Test-tab calls now evaluate caller and target policies in the existing claim transaction. Real HTTP regressions first showed a missing caller charge and shared-limit self-rejection. All 78 connection-management cases and 92 gateway cases now pass on the owning branch, along with server production typechecking. All 78 connection-management cases also pass at combined tip `d25f830db89c1623bff3547bfc68015c1c66e0cf`. The three new cases cover shared charges, separate charges, rollback on denial, duplicate approval, and rejection of a later authorized call. Intermediate counter/identity fixture failures and a reused-database Slack collision are recorded in [the owning audit](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/bcca5b006976a471f4afd1f70c4031aa40a2b3f7/doc/idle-approved-tool-recovery.md#delegated-test-tab-admission-after-policy-changes). The earlier combined checks below remain evidence for their stated revisions. Current-head CI and review remain required. Current head: `bcca5b006976a471f4afd1f70c4031aa40a2b3f7`. This remains a single-duty PR stacked on #17453. - Integrated pinned master `8548173fc9efdc0fa07644fb92dcc0b6851a95e5` with normal merges. Every branch passed generated-schema checks and its target-branch migration-order gate. Existing SQL is unchanged; the 25 stack migrations follow master’s new migration. - Duty-specific producer coverage, lifecycle tests, and earlier failure records: [2026-10-24-recurring-server-sleep-stack.md](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/a021467f04d22be42ee5b0c87b6583b2300a62a9/doc/plans/2026-10-24-recurring-server-sleep-stack.md). - Combined tip `51e6cbe67979b55b340ea9f0f434c5b5c682ccd6`: 355 startup/cancellation/recovery/dispatch/preservation tests, 75 connection-management tests, and production server typechecking pass. These combined checks do not mean every intermediate PR independently ran the full repository suite. - Real master-to-stack database upgrade passes: 379 unchanged prior migration receipts plus 25 new migrations, with the gateway responsibility fixture preserved. - Owning-branch checks: 84 runner installation/settlement cases plus runner typechecking and generated TypeScript/Rust profile agreement; 253 GitHub review workflow cases. Stop-attribution and held-worker readiness regressions failed before their fixes. - Failure accounting: the initial combined run passed 349 cases and failed six idle assertions in a reused preservation database containing old cancelled runs. Repeating the combined command with a fresh preservation database passed. Earlier invalid project selection, merge import/type errors, and the interrupted full local suite are not counted as passing checks. - Latest-head CI and review remain required. Prior CI findings include GitHub idle observation, route teardown, attention cleanup, touch-picker E2E, workspace health, and voice-cleanup timing; local passes do not erase those failures. No full local repository-suite, deployed sleep, fleet cost, or live Copilot qualification claim is made. ## Risks - Notifications cover the existing database-owner, single-active-writer contract. Independent SQL writers and other replicas need an explicit wake path. - Unknown provider outcomes cannot be replayed safely. Failed result persistence retains an executing claim and the existing stale-execution quarantine. - Interrupted execution and terminal interaction projection repair remain periodic until their separate slices. This PR changes only approved recovery. - A pending-only review write can trigger one empty approved-recovery pass. Settled idle work schedules no further scan. - The partial index uses the existing top-level concurrent migration executor. Snapshot pruning follows repository policy. - Cloud sleep eligibility and external alarm coverage remain unchanged. Worker quiet is not proof of deployed instance suspension. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context window were 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-27 16:10:44 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cfa5e0704e	feat(mcp) [split 3/8]: add tool access policy core (#9558 ) ## 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 3/8 and focuses on tool-access policy and authorization core > - 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: Authorization, OAuth binding, secret projection, content guards, and policy evaluation need a security-reviewable server boundary. - Proposed solution: Adds tool-access services/routes/tests plus the runtime service dependencies directly imported by the core, without registering the routes in the application. - 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/02-schema-shared`. - 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 authz, OAuth, secrets, and content guards; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds tool-access services/routes/tests plus the runtime service dependencies directly imported by the core, without registering the routes in the application. - 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` - Focused server Vitest run — 4 files, 143 tests passed ## Risks - Authorization bugs could permit cross-company or over-broad tool access; the PR remains inert until PR 4 wiring and requires dedicated security review. - 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>	2026-07-14 14:22:39 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

DottaandPaperclip

77295faebc

fix(server): recover approved tool actions from committed changes (#17454 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages agent work and its governed tool calls.
> - A human approval can persist before the approving process dispatches
the tool.
> - Recovery currently scans approved requests on every maintenance
tick.
> - Completed and deliberately inert approvals do not owe another
execution.
> - Test-tab approval also needs a shared execution claim before
recovery can safely race the foreground path.
> - This PR wakes recovery from committed changes and retries only
unresolved approvals.
> - Idle history becomes quiet while existing approval and execution
checks remain with the gateway.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #17453. This is the fifth slice of the recurring-server sleep
migration, stacked on `codex/sleep-04-tool-review-expiry`.

**Problem**
Approved tool requests are scanned periodically even when no executable
work remains. The Test-tab foreground path lacks the request claim
needed to admit concurrent recovery safely.

**Proposed Solution**
Use the existing transaction-aware review notification boundary and
shared deadline worker. Keep signed-payload interpretation, current
policy and target checks, and provider dispatch in the gateway. Share a
claim between Test-tab foreground and recovery, then persist both
authoritative outcome rows atomically.

**Alternatives Considered**
A longer interval still scans idle history. A new durable queue would
duplicate existing request/invocation state. Dispatching Test-tab
approvals without a claim risks duplicate external calls.

## What Changed

- Recheck both principals for delegated Test-tab approvals. Save their
rate receipts in the same claim transaction, share only the same bucket,
and roll back new charges on denial.

- Preserve delegated gateway authorization and both issuer/target rate
receipts inside the existing claimed-invocation transaction; retain the
durable actor during approved replay.

- Expire stale managed connector payloads before consuming approved-tool
admission.

- Persist current rate-policy charges and their invocation receipts
atomically before dispatch, preserving exact approval claim fencing and
read-only preflight.

- Recover approved requests at startup and after committed review
changes; retry only unresolved approvals.
- Leave legacy agent approvals without execute-on-approve intent inert.
Repair completed Test-tab history without another provider call.
- Fence Test-tab execution and outcome settlement with an atomic claim
shared by both callers. Revalidate the approved target and current
policy before dispatch.
- Keep provider calls outside database transactions. Retain quarantine
for interrupted execution and unknown outcomes.
- Add a concurrent, idempotent partial index for approved-request
pagination. Reuse the parent's company-scoped review signals and shared
scoped deadline worker.
- Remove approved scanning from the aggregate tick. Preserve the public
combined sweep and scheduler-disabled startup behavior.
- Document producer ownership, quiet states, lifecycle behavior, and
remaining recovery duties.

## Verification

Latest published head: `23868c1751c100a27f58087f7ce16b93c52d4eba`,
targeting master. The review-found delegated gateway pool deadlock is
repaired by passing the admission transaction through token and
issuer-authority reads. Foreground and recovery each reproduced the
deadlock with a one-connection pool; all three constrained-pool cases,
including revoked authority, now pass. All 81 HTTP integration cases
pass. The historical foreground rate-slot regression also reproduced
before its repair; verified preview hashes are accepted only by
read-only preflight, while consuming admission still requires the
complete identity under the exact claim. Five full suites passed 329
cases; the gateway service then passed all 141 cases after two
additional mixed historical hash controls. Production types/build passed
before the final normal integration of master `35820cf398` (including
independent Grok/Runner changes); integration validation is running.
Initial fixture/assertion errors and the prior E2E
restoration/cancellation deadlock remain recorded in [the owning
audit](doc/idle-approved-tool-recovery.md#gateway-admission-uses-its-transaction-connection).
Fresh-head CI, Greptile 5/5, and passing Ponytail are still required
before merge.

- Master landing reconciliation at
`8dfe3958db6e4e8a0b7499f3f5be0a396ca77361` after #17453 merged:
production and server test files are byte-identical to the accepted
320-case repair. The landed migration journal prefix is unchanged, and
#17928's independent eval reporting changes are preserved. Fresh CI and
reviews on this exact head are required before merge.

- Historical-identity repair published at
`096b7c7198c3ca864aca9377e261cbaa0a8aad6f` (production/test source
identical to integrated acceptance
`81231824d773a79fc50c835eccf7d9b3977e79fc`): all 320 accepted gateway,
policy, startup, preparation-timing and authenticated HTTP management
cases pass. Server types and the production server build pass. Four real
historical sensitive-argument regressions failed before repair;
invalid-signature, foreign-hash and stale-claim controls remain denied
without dispatch or identity changes. Both agent and Test-tab calls
deliver the original signed arguments once, and new rate policies still
apply.
- The first integrated combined run passed 319 cases and hit a Slack bot
ownership collision left in a reused HTTP test database. The guard
correctly returned 409. The full 78-case HTTP suite passed on a fresh
dedicated fixture without product or assertion changes. Earlier
fixture-construction errors are distinguished from the four real
regressions in the audit document. Fresh remote CI and reviews remain
required.

- Parent reconciliation at `736e7f56097055e21ce13b4e45d9033391483af8`:
299 cases pass (221 full gateway/policy/startup cases and 78
assembled-server connection management cases), with no skipped cases.
Server types pass. This includes real delegated Test-tab approval
admission for newly added shared and caller rate rules. Fresh remote CI
and Greptile review remain required.

Approved delegated Test-tab calls now evaluate caller and target
policies in the existing claim transaction. Real HTTP regressions first
showed a missing caller charge and shared-limit self-rejection. All 78
connection-management cases and 92 gateway cases now pass on the owning
branch, along with server production typechecking. All 78
connection-management cases also pass at combined tip
`d25f830db89c1623bff3547bfc68015c1c66e0cf`. The three new cases cover
shared charges, separate charges, rollback on denial, duplicate
approval, and rejection of a later authorized call. Intermediate
counter/identity fixture failures and a reused-database Slack collision
are recorded in [the owning
audit](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/bcca5b006976a471f4afd1f70c4031aa40a2b3f7/doc/idle-approved-tool-recovery.md#delegated-test-tab-admission-after-policy-changes).
The earlier combined checks below remain evidence for their stated
revisions. Current-head CI and review remain required.

Current head: `bcca5b006976a471f4afd1f70c4031aa40a2b3f7`. This remains a
single-duty PR stacked on #17453.

- Integrated pinned master `8548173fc9efdc0fa07644fb92dcc0b6851a95e5`
with normal merges. Every branch passed generated-schema checks and its
target-branch migration-order gate. Existing SQL is unchanged; the 25
stack migrations follow master’s new migration.
- Duty-specific producer coverage, lifecycle tests, and earlier failure
records:
[2026-10-24-recurring-server-sleep-stack.md](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/a021467f04d22be42ee5b0c87b6583b2300a62a9/doc/plans/2026-10-24-recurring-server-sleep-stack.md).
- Combined tip `51e6cbe67979b55b340ea9f0f434c5b5c682ccd6`: **355
startup/cancellation/recovery/dispatch/preservation tests**, **75
connection-management tests**, and production server typechecking pass.
These combined checks do not mean every intermediate PR independently
ran the full repository suite.
- Real master-to-stack database upgrade passes: **379 unchanged prior
migration receipts plus 25 new migrations**, with the gateway
responsibility fixture preserved.
- Owning-branch checks: 84 runner installation/settlement cases plus
runner typechecking and generated TypeScript/Rust profile agreement; 253
GitHub review workflow cases. Stop-attribution and held-worker readiness
regressions failed before their fixes.
- Failure accounting: the initial combined run passed 349 cases and
failed six idle assertions in a reused preservation database containing
old cancelled runs. Repeating the combined command with a fresh
preservation database passed. Earlier invalid project selection, merge
import/type errors, and the interrupted full local suite are not counted
as passing checks.
- **Latest-head CI and review remain required.** Prior CI findings
include GitHub idle observation, route teardown, attention cleanup,
touch-picker E2E, workspace health, and voice-cleanup timing; local
passes do not erase those failures. No full local repository-suite,
deployed sleep, fleet cost, or live Copilot qualification claim is made.

## Risks

- Notifications cover the existing database-owner, single-active-writer
contract. Independent SQL writers and other replicas need an explicit
wake path.
- Unknown provider outcomes cannot be replayed safely. Failed result
persistence retains an executing claim and the existing stale-execution
quarantine.
- Interrupted execution and terminal interaction projection repair
remain periodic until their separate slices. This PR changes only
approved recovery.
- A pending-only review write can trigger one empty approved-recovery
pass. Settled idle work schedules no further scan.
- The partial index uses the existing top-level concurrent migration
executor. Snapshot pruning follows repository policy.
- Cloud sleep eligibility and external alarm coverage remain unchanged.
Worker quiet is not proof of deployed instance suspension.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and code execution. The exact
serving model identifier and context window were 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
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-10-27 16:10:44 -05:00

DottaandPaperclip

cfa5e0704e

feat(mcp) [split 3/8]: add tool access policy core (#9558 )

## 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 3/8 and focuses on tool-access policy and
authorization core
> - 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: Authorization, OAuth binding, secret projection, content
guards, and policy evaluation need a security-reviewable server
boundary.
- Proposed solution: Adds tool-access services/routes/tests plus the
runtime service dependencies directly imported by the core, without
registering the routes in the application.
- 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/02-schema-shared`.
- 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 authz, OAuth, secrets, and
content guards; Greptile on every PR.

## What Changed

- Adds tool-access services/routes/tests plus the runtime service
dependencies directly imported by the core, without registering the
routes in the application.
- 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`
- Focused server Vitest run — 4 files, 143 tests passed

## Risks

- Authorization bugs could permit cross-company or over-broad tool
access; the PR remains inert until PR 4 wiring and requires dedicated
security review.
- 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>

2026-07-14 14:22:39 -05:00