2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	c145475cae	fix: admit documented sandbox task context routes (#16892) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip agents use task context to complete assigned work. > - Sandboxed agents reach the controller through a bounded callback bridge. > - The bridge rejects several documented context routes before controller authorization runs. > - An authorized agent cannot read a task screenshot or referenced skill file, or inspect a missed monitor wake. > - This pull request admits only the exact context routes and supported methods. > - The controller continues to enforce company, resource, task and monitor authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Both callback transports return `Route not allowed` for task asset content, company skill detail and files, wake diagnostics, and the monitor check-now action. These operations already exist in the controller. **Expected behavior** A sandboxed agent can use these documented operations when the controller authorizes its request. Other methods, deeper paths, skill mutations, and recovery resolution remain restricted. **Steps to reproduce** Use a sandbox callback to read an asset URL from a task description, read a company skill's referenced file, or inspect a task's wake diagnostics. The baseline bridge rejects each request. The new regression matrix runs all five operations against both transport allowlists. Related: #16772 documents refused callback routes. This PR fixes the context routes listed above; it does not add company-wide activity or labels access. ## What Changed - Admit asset content, skill detail/files, and wake diagnostic reads. - Admit the existing monitor check-now action with controller authorization. - Add a focused allow/deny matrix for both transports. - Update the operational API reference and access maps. ## Verification - With the pre-fix bridge rules, all 10 allowed-request cases fail with `Route not allowed` across the two transports; all 24 deny controls still pass. - With the fix restored, all 34 route cases pass. The matrix plus existing callback suite passes 119 tests across two files. - Local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - The access-map checker, capability contract generation check, and capability inventory check pass. - Full repository CI passes on `97f9f06b2c`: typecheck/release registry, all test shards, build, Docker context, canary dry run, and aggregate verify. - The duplicate local full-suite run was stopped after 24 minutes once full CI passed; it is not claimed as a completed local pass. - Greptile is 5/5 on the current head with no inline findings. Independent source review checked asset, skill, wake-diagnostic, and monitor controller authorization and found no actionable issues. - The secondary Paperclip automated review is neutral/incomplete. Independent review covered its missing controller checks; the real Vitest cases and full CI provide execution evidence. ## Risks This widens transport admission for five existing operations. It does not change controller authorization. Asset reads still check company/task visibility; skill reads keep source policy; monitor checks keep ownership and management permission. No schema or UI change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use and code execution. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID or context window. The work used failing-before and passing-after regression tests. ## 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>	2026-10-19 16:27:05 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7d9b93aee2	docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## 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>	2026-10-12 14:52:28 -05:00