4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	5498db1072	fix(interactions): relay a verified reply to a self-requested human-only confirmation (#19243) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents ask users to approve proposals and plans with confirmation cards, and users often answer in the conversation > - `resolve-from-comment` lets the responding agent record that verified reply on the card > - Native agents often create their own proposal or plan confirmation as `human_only`, because the `request_human_input` schema offers only that value > - `resolve-from-comment` then refuses with `interaction_human_only`, and the plan and onboarding gates keep the task in `in_review` or `blocked`, although the user explicitly approved > - This pull request adds one narrow relay for that case and keeps every other human-only gate on its card > - The benefit is that an explicit conversational approval works again, and governed, company-capped and quality-review approvals keep their existing controls ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19073 **What happened?** TestOps launch https://paperclip.testops.cloud/launch/2694 (GitHub run https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41915965118) failed three Product regression cases for the same reason: `continuation/revision-preserves-approval`, `first-task/clarify-propose-accept` and `first-task/revise-accept`. In each case the agent created a `request_confirmation` with `resolverPolicy: human_only` (`effectiveResolverPolicySource: requested`). The user replied "I approve…" or "Yes, I accept that proposal". The agent's `resolve-from-comment` call returned 403 `interaction_human_only`. The task stayed `in_review` (plan gate) or became `blocked` (onboarding decision gate). **Expected behavior** When the agent itself asked for a human-only answer, the verified latest reply of the user it serves is that human answer. The agent can record it. Company-capped, governed-action, issue-review and quality-review gates still require the human to use the card. **Steps to reproduce** 1. A native agent calls `request_human_input` with `interactionKind: confirmation` and `resolverPolicy: human_only`. 2. The conversation user posts an explicit approval comment. 3. The agent calls `POST /api/issues/{id}/interactions/{interactionId}/resolve-from-comment`. Before this change it gets 403. ## What Changed - `issue-thread-interaction-resolution.ts`: the agent actor gets an optional `relayedHumanUserId`. A human-only decision is allowed as `allow_relayed_human` only when all of these are true: - the stored policy is `human_only`, its source is `requested` and its provenance is `explicit` - the resolving agent created the card (`createdByAgentId` matches) - no governed action applies - no additional restriction (issue review) applies - any named addressee user is the relayed user Company caps, the `governed_action` source and legacy rows with an unknown source are still denied. - `confirmation-comment-resolution.ts`: the service sets `relayedHumanUserId` only after its existing comment checks pass: user-authored, not agent-attributed, posted after the card, the latest user message, the same conversation session. It also requires that the author is the card's addressee, the conversation user or the run's responsible user, that the card is not a quality review, and that the company's current cap for the kind is not `human_only` (a tied cap keeps the source `requested`). The same actor goes into the locked accept/reject re-check. The activity entry adds `resolverPolicy: "human_only"` and `resolution: "relayed_human_decision"`. - `routes/issues.ts`: the route pre-check passes the candidate comment author. The service still re-verifies everything under its locks. - `issue-thread-interactions.ts`: carries the relay field into the service's own audience re-check. - Docs: the first-task skill and `api-reference.md` describe the narrow relay. The guidance still says not to add `human_only` to ordinary proposals. ## Verification - `server/src/__tests__/confirmation-comment-resolution.test.ts` (embedded Postgres): 72 pass. - Green: relay through a conversation user and through a run's responsible user. The card is `accepted`, `resolvedByAgentId` and `resolvedByRunId` are set, `resolvedByUserId` stays null, and the audit records `relayed_human_decision`. - Negative controls, each with the card still pending and no audit: agent-authored comment, earlier comment, wrong user, unbound issue/run, `company_cap` source, `governed_action` source, `qualityReview`, `toolAction`, `connectionAuthorization`, issue-review `human_only` restriction, another addressed user, human-created card, another agent's card, inherited company default, and a real capped card created through `svc.create` with a tied cap. The tied-cap test fails as expected when the cap is removed. - Existing negative controls are unchanged, including `human_only` without a bound user and the "rechecks narrowed permissions" retry. - Red check: with the three service files reverted to `master`, the two new green tests fail and the negative controls pass. - `server/src/services/issue-thread-interaction-resolution.test.ts`: 21 pass, including the pure evaluator relay rules. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/confirmation-comment-api.integration.test.ts`: 11 pass. The real route accepts the relayed reply and refuses another user's comment with 403. - Also pass: `issue-thread-interaction-routes`, `onboarding-first-task-admission`, `paperclip-runner-tool-authority`, `runner-api`, `onboarding-first-task-assets` and `company-skills-service` (2,474 tests in total). - Changed files typecheck cleanly. - Live verification: Product regression single-case runs of the three cases are pending after merge. ## Risks - This touches an approval gate. The relay is limited to cards whose creator chose `human_only`. All existing reply-evidence checks still apply, plus a bound-user requirement. Company caps, governed actions, quality reviews, issue-review restrictions and named addressees still deny the relay. - Attribution does not change: the resolver is still the agent and run. The human's comment is kept as `result.commentId` and in the audit. - Legacy rows with a null policy source are not relayed. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), via Claude Code 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 - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-05 08:31:31 -06:00
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>	2026-08-31 14:38:38 -05:00
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>	2026-08-29 12:08:33 -05:00
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>	2026-08-16 13:46:50 -05:00