PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	aa8fc86331	feat(connections): prefer native apps and ask users to choose external providers (#13941 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connections give agents governed access to external services. > - Native connections should remain the first choice for a supported app. > - Other apps may be available through an external MCP provider. > - The user must know which external provider handles the connection and choose it before setup. > - This pull request adds ranked alternatives and server-authored instructions to connection search. > - Agents can follow the returned instructions while Paperclip validates saved choices and access. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #13879, which fixed inline MCP provider setup. This PR adds discovery and provider selection on top of that work. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: shared connection contracts, server search and intent services, native runtime, CLI, inline setup UI, and evals. Problem or motivation An agent cannot offer a clear external-provider choice when Paperclip has no native connection for an app. Adding provider-specific branches to the core prompt would make those instructions harder to maintain. Proposed solution Prefer a native connection. Otherwise return verified alternatives in Composio, Arcade, Executor, Zapier order. Include an external-service disclosure, a question with None, and the next instruction in the search result. Validate the saved human choice before creating a selected fallback setup card. Reuse existing provider accounts and verify underlying app access separately. Alternatives considered Do not silently choose a provider. Do not claim that broad execution tools prove support for every app. Reuse existing questions and connection intents rather than add another connection model. Roadmap alignment Extends the existing MCP Tool Gateway & Apps and Agent evals & feedback capabilities. The MCP aggregators experiment remains the gate. No duplicate provider-routing PR was found in the public search. ## What Changed - Add a dated support index and authorized cached-tool evidence for external routes. - Return provider questions and next-step instructions from `connections_search`. - Preserve pending choices and declines across continuation. Validate company, task, agent, human, app, and current route eligibility. - Carry the selected app into new setup and account reuse, validate explicit provider requests against persisted human messages, and distinguish provider readiness from app authorization. - Sync native, MCP, REST, and CLI contracts. Keep core agent instructions provider-neutral. - Add production-component Storybooks, focused database tests, and three real-agent browser eval cases. - Record the plan, observed failures, fixes, passing evidence, and acceptance limits. ## Verification - Latest head `586f0e6cd`: 54 checks passed, 2 skipped; Greptile 5/5 and all review threads resolved. - After rebasing on master `18dac1e1e`: 64 focused shared, validator, route-contract, and database tests passed; server typecheck passed. - Embedded-browser test drive on the rebased head: native Jira card, HubSpot external-provider question, Arcade account reuse, one actual MCP read against a local synthetic fixture, reload persistence, and None preventing further calls. A real OpenAI-backed agent performed discovery and continuation. - UX observation: the agent initially combined mutually exclusive request fields; the server rejected it and the agent recovered without changing access. This extra retry remains visible in the transcript. - After rebase: 23 focused eval grader/catalog tests, affected TypeScript checks, token gates, production UI build, and Storybook build passed. Full local tests are intentionally excluded at the maintainer's request. - Before rebase: four browser/real-agent attempts passed: native Jira, None, and reuse of the second provider on two Codex profiles. - Browser evals used an isolated deterministic MCP fixture through the real Paperclip gateway. They do not prove production compatibility with all four providers. - Review `Apps / Connections / Provider choice` in Storybook. Choose Arcade, continue through Access, and verify the app name, external-service disclosure, and URL configuration. - The detailed verification report is `doc/connections/2026-09-23-aggregator-routing-verification.md`. ## Risks - The public support index is finite and can age. Account capability and app authorization still require verification after selection. - Existing installed-tool permissions remain in effect. Provider choice is not a new execution permission boundary. An early Mini attempt skipped search; clearer provider-neutral instructions made the targeted rerun pass. This is not a measured reliability rate. - Explicit requests skip provider confirmation only when a clear persisted human message or saved provider choice supports them. Other phrasing falls back to confirmation; the agent query alone is not consent. These routes do not add tool permissions. - No database migration or legacy Composio broker is added. Real-provider acceptance remains separate from fixture proof. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser tools. The exact deployment variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Product evals separately used the repository's primary Codex and Codex Mini profiles; those agents supplied test behavior, not independent provider compatibility proof. ## 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>	2026-09-24 16:36:49 -05:00
Dotta OpenAI GPT-5.6 Luna Paperclip	cceeb0aa66	test(runner): add everyday workflow evaluation harness (#13474 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runner must support project work, delegation, hiring, and service access. > - Browser tests exposed lost connection access, rejected helper events, and stalled recovery. > - Some eval failures also came from incorrect fixtures and decision controls. > - This pull request fixes those paths and adds eight everyday workflow stories. > - The tests retain observed failures and verify delivered files independently. > - The benefit is repeatable evidence for common user tasks and their remaining gaps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: #13404 contains earlier workflow fixes. #13300 and #13470 changed the CI contracts used by the harness security tests. Merged companion: [paperclip-evals#22](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/22). What happened? Native ACPX sessions did not receive the assigned connection gateway. Codex helper events could arrive before their spawn receipt and fail thread validation. A parent continuation could take a shared workspace before its child retried. A failed native continuation could leave the task status without a clear recovery blocker. The eval harness also confused tool approvals with new connection requests and could reject a valid delegated download. Expected behavior Keep assigned gateway access and its approval checks. Verify helper lineage before accepting helper progress. Let a waiting child proceed before automatic parent recovery. Preserve a failed task's recovery ownership. Grade the actual requested workflow and its delivered files. Steps to reproduce Run the everyday workflow suite with the native Codex and Claude profiles. Exercise service approval, connection refusal, delegated project work, and teammate reuse. The commands and case requirements are in `tests/runner-e2e/EVERYDAY-WORKFLOWS.md`. Use `pnpm test:runner-recovery` for controlled crash and replacement cases. ## What Changed - Pass the scoped connection gateway binding through the native ACPX host and sidecar. - Recognize Codex helper lineage from parent metadata and spawn receipts. Verify early helper events with `thread/read`. Keep helper events separate from root completion authority. - Guide agents to use persistent hiring, child tasks, dependency records, and a blocked handoff while waiting for a child. - Defer automatic parent recovery while a child has an active execution path in the same shared workspace. Allow parent recovery when the child needs review. - Record Blocked status and recovery evidence when a failed native continuation needs reconciliation, including existing active or escalated incidents. Preserve their owner and retry budget. - Add eight browser-driven workflow cases. Use real decision controls, explicit child feedback delivery, managed hiring credentials, and independent ZIP checks inside a bounded Docker sandbox. Verify sandbox availability before task creation. Record screenshot SHA-256 at capture. - Keep runner crash probes in controlled recovery tests. Preserve the original failure when cleanup also fails. - Display missing accounting and replay revisions as unavailable. Align harness security assertions with the approved CI changes. - Make the channel-rejection browser fixture bind its file after the send captures its payload. This prevents live refresh from removing the file before the simulated race. ## Verification - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after merging current master. - Runner E2E typecheck passed. Harness unit tests passed: 216/216. - Wake-queue database tests passed: 55/55. The two added existing-incident tests failed before the fix and pass after it. - Docker artifact calibration passed: 12/12. Host-file and host-loopback isolation tests failed before the fix and pass after it. Read-only delivery and output limits are also verified. - Full `pnpm build` passed. Targeted recovery tests passed: 83/83. - The channel-rejection browser test passed five consecutive runs after fixing the fixture race found in CI. - Local general-server (12,351 tests), UI (6,250), CLI (485), and workspace package groups passed. The monolithic run stopped at an unchanged lock-heartbeat fixture race; the isolated workspace group passed on rerun (shared: 747/747). A separate local serialized run passed 97 files before two socket errors in the unchanged issue-list route suite; that suite passed 15/15 on isolated rerun. These local full commands did not finish uninterrupted; the complete CI matrix below covers the remaining suites. - Final head `0fb293733fe307be7e6667ae8f1364077d0c6455`: 34 successful checks, 2 expected skips, including every server/workspace shard, browser shard, native runner verification, build, and typecheck. [Final CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34989136700). - Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5; all review threads are resolved. Both Superagent security checks are successful. - ACPX credential-boundary tests passed: 118/118. Superagent accepted the runner/sidecar versus provider-environment trace and cleared its finding. - The latest paid local campaign on source `f6a2fdf7ac2af859826a2ae627ff4125a5478529` passed 22/24 cases: Sol 8/8, Claude 7/8, Mini 7/8. These results predate the merge with current master. - The two remaining failures are in `hire-reuse`: Claude exceeded the attempt deadline during final review; Mini made invalid deliverable tool calls and remained Blocked. - Six Daytona cases were not run because the matching immutable runner image was unavailable. This PR does not claim new remote model results. ## Risks The changes affect connection admission, helper identity, and recovery scheduling. Assigned gateway grants and user approval still govern service calls. The workspace admission gate still exists; the broader folder-sync design is separate work. Provider behavior can still cause the two recorded hiring failures. No database migration is required. Paid cases are opt-in and have bounded attempt deadlines. Project stories now require Docker and the documented pinned Python image on the harness host. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6-astra` performed implementation, diagnosis, and substantive review. OpenAI `gpt-5.6-luna` assisted with verification, PR preparation, and review tracking. Both used repository tools and code execution. Context-window sizes were not recorded. ## 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 (focused checks and isolated reruns; full-run limitations are documented above) - [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: OpenAI GPT-5.6 Luna <noreply@openai.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-15 11:04:16 -05:00
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>	2026-09-08 19:37:13 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

DottaandPaperclip

aa8fc86331

feat(connections): prefer native apps and ask users to choose external providers (#13941 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Connections give agents governed access to external services.
> - Native connections should remain the first choice for a supported
app.
> - Other apps may be available through an external MCP provider.
> - The user must know which external provider handles the connection
and choose it before setup.
> - This pull request adds ranked alternatives and server-authored
instructions to connection search.
> - Agents can follow the returned instructions while Paperclip
validates saved choices and access.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Related: #13879, which fixed inline MCP provider setup. This PR adds
discovery and provider selection on top of that work.

**Subsystem affected**

Cross-cutting: shared connection contracts, server search and intent
services, native runtime, CLI, inline setup UI, and evals.

**Problem or motivation**

An agent cannot offer a clear external-provider choice when Paperclip
has no native connection for an app. Adding provider-specific branches
to the core prompt would make those instructions harder to maintain.

**Proposed solution**

Prefer a native connection. Otherwise return verified alternatives in
Composio, Arcade, Executor, Zapier order. Include an external-service
disclosure, a question with None, and the next instruction in the search
result. Validate the saved human choice before creating a selected
fallback setup card. Reuse existing provider accounts and verify
underlying app access separately.

**Alternatives considered**

Do not silently choose a provider. Do not claim that broad execution
tools prove support for every app. Reuse existing questions and
connection intents rather than add another connection model.

**Roadmap alignment**

Extends the existing MCP Tool Gateway & Apps and Agent evals & feedback
capabilities. The MCP aggregators experiment remains the gate. No
duplicate provider-routing PR was found in the public search.

## What Changed

- Add a dated support index and authorized cached-tool evidence for
external routes.
- Return provider questions and next-step instructions from
`connections_search`.
- Preserve pending choices and declines across continuation. Validate
company, task, agent, human, app, and current route eligibility.
- Carry the selected app into new setup and account reuse, validate
explicit provider requests against persisted human messages, and
distinguish provider readiness from app authorization.
- Sync native, MCP, REST, and CLI contracts. Keep core agent
instructions provider-neutral.
- Add production-component Storybooks, focused database tests, and three
real-agent browser eval cases.
- Record the plan, observed failures, fixes, passing evidence, and
acceptance limits.

## Verification

- Latest head `586f0e6cd`: 54 checks passed, 2 skipped; Greptile 5/5 and
all review threads resolved.

- After rebasing on master `18dac1e1e`: 64 focused shared, validator,
route-contract, and database tests passed; server typecheck passed.
- Embedded-browser test drive on the rebased head: native Jira card,
HubSpot external-provider question, Arcade account reuse, one actual MCP
read against a local synthetic fixture, reload persistence, and None
preventing further calls. A real OpenAI-backed agent performed discovery
and continuation.
- UX observation: the agent initially combined mutually exclusive
request fields; the server rejected it and the agent recovered without
changing access. This extra retry remains visible in the transcript.
- After rebase: 23 focused eval grader/catalog tests, affected
TypeScript checks, token gates, production UI build, and Storybook build
passed. Full local tests are intentionally excluded at the maintainer's
request.
- Before rebase: four browser/real-agent attempts passed: native Jira,
None, and reuse of the second provider on two Codex profiles.
- Browser evals used an isolated deterministic MCP fixture through the
real Paperclip gateway. They do not prove production compatibility with
all four providers.
- Review `Apps / Connections / Provider choice` in Storybook. Choose
Arcade, continue through Access, and verify the app name,
external-service disclosure, and URL configuration.
- The detailed verification report is
`doc/connections/2026-09-23-aggregator-routing-verification.md`.

## Risks

- The public support index is finite and can age. Account capability and
app authorization still require verification after selection.
- Existing installed-tool permissions remain in effect. Provider choice
is not a new execution permission boundary. An early Mini attempt
skipped search; clearer provider-neutral instructions made the targeted
rerun pass. This is not a measured reliability rate.
- Explicit requests skip provider confirmation only when a clear
persisted human message or saved provider choice supports them. Other
phrasing falls back to confirmation; the agent query alone is not
consent. These routes do not add tool permissions.
- No database migration or legacy Composio broker is added.
Real-provider acceptance remains separate from fixture proof.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and browser tools. The exact deployment variant and
context-window size are not exposed in this session. Product evals
separately used the repository's primary Codex and Codex Mini profiles;
those agents supplied test behavior, not independent provider
compatibility proof.

## 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>

2026-09-24 16:36:49 -05:00

cceeb0aa66

test(runner): add everyday workflow evaluation harness (#13474 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The native runner must support project work, delegation, hiring, and
service access.
> - Browser tests exposed lost connection access, rejected helper
events, and stalled recovery.
> - Some eval failures also came from incorrect fixtures and decision
controls.
> - This pull request fixes those paths and adds eight everyday workflow
stories.
> - The tests retain observed failures and verify delivered files
independently.
> - The benefit is repeatable evidence for common user tasks and their
remaining gaps.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Related work: #13404 contains earlier workflow fixes. #13300 and #13470
changed the CI contracts used by the harness security tests. Merged
companion:
[paperclip-evals#22](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/22).

**What happened?**

Native ACPX sessions did not receive the assigned connection gateway.
Codex helper events could arrive before their spawn receipt and fail
thread validation. A parent continuation could take a shared workspace
before its child retried. A failed native continuation could leave the
task status without a clear recovery blocker. The eval harness also
confused tool approvals with new connection requests and could reject a
valid delegated download.

**Expected behavior**

Keep assigned gateway access and its approval checks. Verify helper
lineage before accepting helper progress. Let a waiting child proceed
before automatic parent recovery. Preserve a failed task's recovery
ownership. Grade the actual requested workflow and its delivered files.

**Steps to reproduce**

Run the everyday workflow suite with the native Codex and Claude
profiles. Exercise service approval, connection refusal, delegated
project work, and teammate reuse. The commands and case requirements are
in `tests/runner-e2e/EVERYDAY-WORKFLOWS.md`. Use `pnpm
test:runner-recovery` for controlled crash and replacement cases.

## What Changed

- Pass the scoped connection gateway binding through the native ACPX
host and sidecar.
- Recognize Codex helper lineage from parent metadata and spawn
receipts. Verify early helper events with `thread/read`. Keep helper
events separate from root completion authority.
- Guide agents to use persistent hiring, child tasks, dependency
records, and a blocked handoff while waiting for a child.
- Defer automatic parent recovery while a child has an active execution
path in the same shared workspace. Allow parent recovery when the child
needs review.
- Record Blocked status and recovery evidence when a failed native
continuation needs reconciliation, including existing active or
escalated incidents. Preserve their owner and retry budget.
- Add eight browser-driven workflow cases. Use real decision controls,
explicit child feedback delivery, managed hiring credentials, and
independent ZIP checks inside a bounded Docker sandbox. Verify sandbox
availability before task creation. Record screenshot SHA-256 at capture.
- Keep runner crash probes in controlled recovery tests. Preserve the
original failure when cleanup also fails.
- Display missing accounting and replay revisions as unavailable. Align
harness security assertions with the approved CI changes.
- Make the channel-rejection browser fixture bind its file after the
send captures its payload. This prevents live refresh from removing the
file before the simulated race.

## Verification

- Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after merging current
master.
- Runner E2E typecheck passed. Harness unit tests passed: 216/216.
- Wake-queue database tests passed: 55/55. The two added
existing-incident tests failed before the fix and pass after it.
- Docker artifact calibration passed: 12/12. Host-file and host-loopback
isolation tests failed before the fix and pass after it. Read-only
delivery and output limits are also verified.
- Full `pnpm build` passed. Targeted recovery tests passed: 83/83.
- The channel-rejection browser test passed five consecutive runs after
fixing the fixture race found in CI.
- Local general-server (12,351 tests), UI (6,250), CLI (485), and
workspace package groups passed. The monolithic run stopped at an
unchanged lock-heartbeat fixture race; the isolated workspace group
passed on rerun (shared: 747/747). A separate local serialized run
passed 97 files before two socket errors in the unchanged issue-list
route suite; that suite passed 15/15 on isolated rerun. These local full
commands did not finish uninterrupted; the complete CI matrix below
covers the remaining suites.
- Final head `0fb293733fe307be7e6667ae8f1364077d0c6455`: **34 successful
checks, 2 expected skips**, including every server/workspace shard,
browser shard, native runner verification, build, and typecheck. [Final
CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34989136700).
- Greptile reviewed this exact head at **5/5**; all review threads are
resolved. Both Superagent security checks are successful.
- ACPX credential-boundary tests passed: 118/118. Superagent accepted
the runner/sidecar versus provider-environment trace and cleared its
finding.
- The latest paid local campaign on source
`f6a2fdf7ac2af859826a2ae627ff4125a5478529` passed 22/24 cases: Sol 8/8,
Claude 7/8, Mini 7/8. These results predate the merge with current
master.
- The two remaining failures are in `hire-reuse`: Claude exceeded the
attempt deadline during final review; Mini made invalid deliverable tool
calls and remained Blocked.
- Six Daytona cases were not run because the matching immutable runner
image was unavailable. This PR does not claim new remote model results.

## Risks

The changes affect connection admission, helper identity, and recovery
scheduling. Assigned gateway grants and user approval still govern
service calls. The workspace admission gate still exists; the broader
folder-sync design is separate work. Provider behavior can still cause
the two recorded hiring failures. No database migration is required.
Paid cases are opt-in and have bounded attempt deadlines. Project
stories now require Docker and the documented pinned Python image on the
harness host.

## Model Used

OpenAI `gpt-6-astra` performed implementation, diagnosis, and
substantive review. OpenAI `gpt-5.6-luna` assisted with verification, PR
preparation, and review tracking. Both used repository tools and code
execution. Context-window sizes were not recorded.

## 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 (focused checks and
isolated reruns; full-run limitations are documented above)
- [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: OpenAI GPT-5.6 Luna <noreply@openai.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-09-15 11:04:16 -05:00

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>

2026-09-08 19:37:13 -05:00