mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-31 22:24:16 +01:00
d6dfbb495db44b60faa37416675e8ffbb9cc10d0
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Dylan RoyandClaude Fable 5
|
7b09e3da73 |
fix: count writes from unscoped heartbeat runs against the cross-issue cap instead of rejecting them (#12621)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents act inside heartbeat runs, and the server attributes every
issue comment and task update to a run so the per-run cross-issue
influence cap can be counted
> - A timer heartbeat that wakes an agent with no checked-out issue
stores no `issueId` in the run context snapshot
> - The influence gate treats that missing source issue as "no valid
run" and rejects every comment and PATCH from the run with
`cross_issue_influence_run_context_required`, even though the run row
exists and fully attributes the write
> - Issue creation is not gated, so an unscoped run can open an issue it
then cannot describe, update, or comment on
> - This pull request counts writes from unscoped runs against the
cross-issue cap instead of rejecting them
> - The benefit is that unscoped heartbeat runs keep their write
channels while the anti-spray cap and the audit trail stay fully intact
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. Description follows the bug report template.
**What happened?**
An agent woken by a plain heartbeat timer (no assigned issue) received a
403 with code `cross_issue_influence_run_context_required` on every
`POST /api/issues/{id}/comments` and `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` request.
The agent JWT was fresh and its `run_id` matched a live `heartbeat_runs`
row. The error text said the request "arrived without a valid run", but
the run was valid. `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/issues` succeeded
with the same token, so the run created an issue it could not then
update.
**Expected behavior**
A live, authenticated run must be able to comment and update issues. A
run with no source issue has no same-issue exemption, so each of its
writes must spend the per-run cross-issue cap. The
`cross_issue_influence_run_context_required` error must fire only for
malformed, unknown, or mismatched run ids.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Let an agent wake from the heartbeat timer with no checked-out issue.
2. From that run, call `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` or `POST
/api/issues/{id}/comments` with the agent JWT.
3. The server returns 403 `cross_issue_influence_run_context_required`,
because `observeCrossIssueInfluence` throws when `readRunSourceIssueId`
returns null.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master (
|
||
|
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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5
|
e8ae5286eb |
feat(issues): explain cross-task agent writes with attribution, audit receipts, and actionable denials (#10843)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents write to tasks they do not own. They comment, they change
fields, and the control plane now permits this by default for
standard-trust agents on any task they can read
> - This makes a task thread ambiguous. A reader sees a comment from an
agent that is not the assignee, but no surface says whose authority that
write rode
> - The same gap applies to field edits. The activity stream named the
verb, but it did not show the before value, the after value, or the
reason the write was permitted
> - The remaining refusals are also opaque. An agent that hits a wall
receives a 403 with no boundary name, no actor who can act, and no
sanctioned path. One real incident spent a full detour to find the
workaround
> - This pull request adds the three surfaces that make open cross-task
writes legible: an attribution chip, a field-level audit receipt, and an
actionable denial contract shared by the API and the UI
> - The benefit is that a reader can answer "who did this, on whose
authority, and was it allowed?" on the task itself, and a blocked writer
is told what to do next
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this work, so the enhancement is described
here.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Cross-task agent writes are permitted, but they are not explained. A
task thread can hold comments from agents that are not the assignee, and
the activity stream can hold field changes made by those agents. Neither
surface names the responsible user behind the write. When a write is
refused, the error text does not name the boundary or the way forward.
**Subsystem affected**
Issue detail UI (comment thread and activity stream), the issue write
authorization responses in the server, and the shared copy contract that
both consume.
**Current behavior**
- An agent comment on a task the agent does not own looks the same as an
assignee comment.
- An `issue.updated` activity row states the verb only. It does not show
the field-level before and after values, the responsible user, or the
authorization reason.
- A refused write returns a short message such as an ownership error.
The message does not state which rule fired, who is able to perform the
action, or which alternative path is sanctioned.
**Proposed behavior**
- An agent comment on a task the agent does not own carries a chip that
reads "for {user}". The chip names the responsible user. Its tooltip
states that the author is not the assignee and cannot exceed that user's
permissions.
- Each `issue.updated` row shows a receipt: the changed fields with
before and after values, the responsible user, and the authorization
reason. This applies to board edits as well as agent edits.
- Each refusal states three things: the boundary that fired, who is able
to act, and the sanctioned path. The API error body and the in-app
notice use the same words, because both read one shared contract.
Related pull requests, found by searching this repository:
- Refs #10837 — merged. It added the default-open cross-task write rule,
the comment attribution data, and the per-run containment cap that this
pull request makes visible.
- Refs #10114 — open. It proposes a narrower authorization change in the
same area.
- Refs #7998 — open. It proposes append-only cross-assignee comments as
an alternative to opening writes.
## What Changed
- Adds `packages/shared/src/issue-write-denial.ts`. This is one copy
contract for eight ways an issue write can be refused: not visible,
responsible-user ceiling, responsible user unavailable, excluded actor
class, assignee run lock, per-run cross-task cap, missing run context,
and rejected attribution. Each entry names the boundary, who can act,
and the sanctioned path.
- Maps server authorization decisions onto that contract in
`server/src/routes/issues.ts` and
`server/src/services/cross-issue-influence-limit.ts`. The flattened
`error` string carries all three obligations, and `details.code` lets
the UI render the same words. The two cap codes keep the names they
already ship under.
- Adds `CommentAttributionChip`. It renders "for {user}" beside the
author name on agent comments where the author is not the assignee. It
renders nothing when no responsible user is recorded, so older rows stay
clean. It is wired into both `IssueChatThread` and the flagged
`TaskChatThread` redesign.
- Adds `IssueFieldChangeReceipt`. It renders the change receipt under
`issue.updated` rows in the activity stream. Ids resolve to agent and
user names where the directory is loaded. Server-truncated text is
labelled as a preview, so the receipt never implies that it shows a
whole value.
- Adds `IssueWriteDenialNotice`. It renders the shared copy in the app,
keyed off the denial events the server logs on a task.
- Adds a public `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration` page. It renders all
three surfaces and their edge cases for review without a seeded thread.
This follows the existing `ux-lab` pages.
## Verification
Automated, all green:
```
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run src/issue-write-denial.test.ts # 17 tests
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueWriteDenialNotice.test.tsx \
src/components/IssueFieldChangeReceipt.test.tsx src/components/CommentAttributionChip.test.tsx \
src/lib/issue-change-receipt.test.ts src/lib/comment-attribution.test.ts # 46 tests
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts \
src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts \
src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts \
src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts # 98 tests
```
`tsc --noEmit` passes for the shared, ui, and server packages.
Manual, in a browser:
1. Start the UI only: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vite`.
2. Open `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration`. No session is needed,
because `ux-lab` routes are public.
3. All three surfaces were captured at 1440x900 in light mode and dark
mode, and at 390x844. The page reported no errors.
4. The chip tooltip was opened by a hover and by a keyboard focus.
Rendering the page found defects that the tests had missed. Three copy
and contrast defects were fixed, and two of them are now pinned by a
test. A design review then found three layout defects, which are also
fixed: the denial notice orphaned its label when a value wrapped, the
receipt icon wrapped onto its own line at narrow widths, and the chip
tooltip was reachable by hover only.
## Risks
Low risk, and additive.
- Every new surface renders nothing when its data is absent. Comments
without a recorded responsible user show no chip, and activity events
without a receipt show no receipt, so existing rows do not change.
- No migration is included. The data these surfaces read already ships.
- The wire values of the two per-run cap denial codes are unchanged.
Only the human-readable text changes, plus six codes that had no
`details.code` before.
- The denial copy is read by agents as well as people. If wording must
change later, one shared module is the only place to change it.
- Roadmap check: this extends the completed "Activity log & action
attribution" area rather than duplicating planned core work.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5[1m]`, 1M context
window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. It ran as
an agent in Claude Code and drove a real browser to capture the review
screenshots.
## 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: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f91a6e27c0 |
feat(issues): contain cross-issue agent side effects (#10837)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that coordinates autonomous agent work. > - Agents need to collaborate on issues beyond their current assignment. > - Cross-issue comments and updates are useful, but an unbounded run can create cascading side effects. > - The control plane must preserve company-wide collaboration while containing each run's influence. > - Comment attribution must also show the responsible user and the acting agent in audits. > - This pull request adds run-bound cross-issue containment, attribution, and agent-class wake rules. > - The benefit is safer collaboration without restoring issue-assignee ownership restrictions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Agent-authenticated issue comments, updates, reopen behavior, and assignee wake routing. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server routes and services, shared contracts, database schema and migration, and implementation documentation. **Current behavior** An authenticated agent can collaborate across company issues, but one heartbeat run has no per-run side-effect boundary. Comment records also do not persist the responsible user separately from the acting agent. **Proposed behavior** Require a valid heartbeat run for agent cross-issue comments and updates. Audit each attempt and cap a run at 20 cross-issue effects. Keep the cap in log-only mode until it automatically changes to enforcement at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Preserve same-issue writes. Use agent-class wakes for agent comments. Keep same-run completion comments from reopening completed work. Record the responsible user on agent-authored comments and activity. **Reason and benefit** Agents can collaborate on other issues without an assignment gate, while each run has an atomic and inspectable side-effect limit. Operators can identify both the acting agent and the responsible user. **Breaking changes** After 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC, the twenty-first cross-issue comment or update from one heartbeat run returns a containment error. Agent cross-issue writes without valid run context are rejected. The migration is additive and backfills existing agent-authored comment attribution where the source data is available. ## What Changed - Added an atomic per-run counter for cross-issue agent comments and updates. - Added audit events for allowed and rejected cross-issue effects. - Added the automatic log-only to enforcement flip at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. - Added responsible-user attribution to agent-authored comments, activity records, shared types, and validators. - Added an additive migration and migration coverage for existing comments. - Updated reopen, resume, and wake behavior so agent comments create agent-class wakes and same-run completion comments remain inert. - Updated the implementation specification and regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts packages/db/src/issue-comment-on-behalf-migration.test.ts` — 97 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — server batch: 3,364 passed and 2 skipped; UI batch: 3,504 passed. One unrelated CLI doctor test warned because this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` — 8 tests passed and confirmed the CLI failure was ambient-environment sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. ## Risks - The fixed enforcement timestamp changes production behavior automatically on 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Audit logs before that time provide rollout visibility. - The per-run counter serializes on the heartbeat-run row. This prevents concurrent attempts from racing past the cap but adds a small lock scope for cross-issue writes. - Existing comments can only be backfilled when their acting run or agent attribution is recoverable. > 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 GPT-5 in the Codex agent runtime. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. Reasoning, shell tools, code editing, and test execution were 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] 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> |