2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	0829d94af2	fix(auth): derive low-trust human direction from existing execution records (#14775) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Low-trust review contains work that may include hostile input. > - Its default intake boundary currently blocks direct human chat and tasks outside that boundary. > - Human direction should authorize the assigned work while preserving containment. > - Existing conversations and execution requests already identify direct human instructions. > - This pull request derives exact-task authority from those records and the current assignee. > - The agent can perform that work without gaining access to unrelated tasks or privileged tools. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A low-trust agent with a project boundary rejects its owner's direct Agent Chat before provider execution. Human-assigned tasks outside that project fail the same check. **Expected behavior** An authorized human can talk to the agent or assign it a task. The exact task runs with its existing sandbox, credential, and tool restrictions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Agent Chat and isolated workspaces. Configure a sandbox agent with low-trust review scoped to an intake project. 2. Send the agent a direct board chat message, or assign it a projectless task. 3. Observe `low_trust_boundary_mismatch` before execution. Related: #14766 adds private task directories for repo-free low-trust execution. It is now merged into master and included in the branch base, so CI and staging verify the combined behavior. ## What Changed - Derive owner-chat access from existing conversation identity. - Derive exact-task access from the existing human requester and server-owned request origin, including coalesced requests. Plugin and external sender attribution do not authorize work. - Follow existing `retryOfRunId` database links for automatic continuations, checking company, agent, and task throughout; cancelled ancestors cannot grant authority. - Require a live run and current assignment. Preserve sandbox, credential, privileged-tool, responsible-user, and quarantined-output checks. - Retain board backlog assignments in existing request records without starting execution. Reassignment cancels old human requests in the common service transaction, including plugin writes; late settlement cannot revive them. - Add real database and HTTP coverage for request provenance, retry ancestry, cancelled runs, concurrent reassignment, spoofing, and containment. Document the rule. - Preserve legacy board assignment requests through their existing source, reason, and human requester. - Use the existing wrapped-error helper for concurrent chat-question idempotency; a deterministic race test reproduces the CI failure before the fix and passes after it. - No new schema, migrations, or user-identity fields. Existing requester columns hold attribution. ## Verification - Passed the focused database, policy-retention, HTTP, and reassignment tests locally. The HTTP test creates a task through the real board route and checks the resulting persisted wakeup before exercising agent reads, comments, mutations, and review handoff. - Database tests hold a reassignment transaction open to verify coherent authorization before and after commit, with a two-connection pool. They cover retries, coalesced requests, cancelled ancestry, invalid cross-company/agent/task links, cycles, and forged attribution. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the final commit (`d107c26df`). [Latest-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36815589542) passed: 54 successful checks, two expected skips, including all eight browser-test shards. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved threads. Local tests were targeted; the full test suite ran through CI’s test matrix. - The revised HTTP suite passed all 13 tests; database authorization tests passed all 11, including legacy compatibility and late watchdog settlement; the backlog route contract passed all 3 tests. Another 102 tests covering durable chat admission, wake queues, and Cursor execution passed. - All 90 interaction-service tests passed with both create calls deliberately held until their optimistic reads complete, forcing duplicate-key recovery. That forced race failed before switching to the shared wrapped-error helper. - Previous staging proof covered owner chat and projectless task persistence. The simplified revision has not been redeployed; that earlier proof is not claimed for the new implementation. ## Risks - This is an authorization change: only the live run's exact task qualifies, and normal responsible-user restrictions still apply. - Existing request and retry records are authoritative. Merely naming a responsible/originating user or an external connector sender does not qualify. - Reassignment invalidates existing human request records transactionally. A cancelled run or request cannot regain authority when the task is assigned back. - Ordinary task exceptions require server-owned origin or the legacy board assignment source/reason/actor combination. Existing owner chats use conversation identity. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [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>	2026-10-01 09:45:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	dbebf30c89	Add low-trust review containment (#7530) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract. > - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads. > - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context, which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer assigned to hostile content. > - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging, route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations. > - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection, preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion, documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks, enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic. > - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot surfaces. Fixes #7531. ## What Changed - Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work products. - Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context. - Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime containment, and quarantine redaction. - Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views. - Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review contract plan under `doc/plans/`. - Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered migration are not broken by the renumbered migration. ## Verification - Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata. - Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not broken. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - `git diff --check` - GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify, policy/review, Socket, and Snyk. - Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved Greptile review threads. - No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata, and UI preset controls. - Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions. - Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover the current known routes but future integrations must route through the same containment layer. - The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is 5/5. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI workflow. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically required - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-05 16:48:02 -05:00