mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 16:27:18 +02:00
d9bcf4dfe8e4f6c46bb0c3cd2ff0e56bb73e0cfe
6
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
e5927e1db9 |
fix: give commentary its own default read permission (#16903)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and inspect their work. > - Commentary collects agent suggestions and complaints for company members. > - Commentary used the permission for detailed agent-action audits. > - Owners, admins and viewers could therefore receive a permission error when they opened Commentary. > - This pull request gives commentary its own permission and enables it for all human company roles. > - Members can read feedback while task privacy and detailed audit access keep their own checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16884, which added the Commentary browser. A search found no open PR for this permission fix. **What happened?** Commentary returned `Missing permission: audit:view_agent_actions` for company members without the detailed audit grant. Default owners, admins and viewers did not receive that grant. **Expected behavior** All human company roles can read commentary by default. A separate `commentary:view` permission controls this access. Private source tasks remain private. Commentary access does not grant detailed agent-action audits or CSV exports. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Sign in as an active company owner, admin or viewer without `audit:view_agent_actions`. 2. Open Audit, then Commentary. 3. Observe the permission error before this change. **Paperclip version or commit** Base commit: `7c58ea07b2`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated server or Cloud tenant. ## What Changed - Add `commentary:view` to the shared permission contract and all human role defaults. - Require that permission for commentary list and detail reads. - Add an idempotent upgrade migration for existing active human members. Preserve existing grants and scopes. - Add the commentary default when approving saved human invitation grants that omit it, including pre-upgrade invitations. Preserve explicit commentary scopes. - Add regression coverage for role defaults, permission removal, audit separation, private tasks and migration replay. - Update the API description, specifications, database notes and access maps. ## Verification - Passed 68 tests across commentary reads, role grants, old-invitation HTTP acceptance, migration replay, agent audit routes, access services and migration snapshot drift under the repository's locked dependencies. - Confirmed the new role and read tests failed before the implementation. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Migration numbering and safety checks passed during the build. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally after the invitation fix. - The final-commit CI matrix passed, including all test shards, typecheck, build, public-install checks and canary smoke. The redundant local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the full CI matrix completed; the 68 focused local regressions passed separately. - The first install bypassed the stale lockfile and selected a newer diff-viewer API. The initial typecheck and build failed in that unrelated plugin. Installing the locked versions cleared both failures; the tracked lockfile is unchanged. - The first locked-dependency regression run hit the 15-second limit while importing the audit route graph in its first test. Moving that import into suite setup fixed the timeout; all 58 regressions then passed. - Greptile found that pre-upgrade invitations retain old grant lists. New helper and HTTP regressions reproduced this gap before the fix, then passed after approval added the missing commentary default. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no remaining actionable findings. Its earlier thread is resolved. - No UI code changed. The permission tests use real disposable PostgreSQL databases and HTTP routes. ## Risks - The upgrade deliberately enables commentary for every existing active human company member, including viewers. Existing commentary grants retain their saved scopes. - Source-task privacy still filters previews, counts, searches and full messages. Agent-authenticated browsing remains denied. - Agent-action audit grants, detailed filters and CSV export permissions keep their current behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository editing and command execution. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed to this session. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e6dcd1e8e9 |
feat: add Commentary to Audit with filters and shareable messages (#16884)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents can submit suggestions and complaints while they work. > - Operators currently need database access to read those messages. > - That makes it hard to find feedback from one agent or share a specific message. > - This pull request adds a standard Commentary tab in Audit. > - Operators can filter messages, browse 50 at a time, and share links to full message dialogs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15367, which added feedback storage and agent submission. The duplicate search found no open PR for a commentary reader. **Subsystem affected** Server, shared API contracts, and the board UI. **Problem or motivation** Agent suggestions and complaints are stored but have no board reader. Operators must query the database to inspect feedback. **Proposed solution** Add Commentary to Audit without an experimental toggle. Show previews, agent and message-type filters, text search, and 50-message pages. Opening a row updates the URL. A copied URL opens the full message with its agent, task, and run context. **Alternatives considered** Direct database queries remain useful for operators, but do not provide a normal product workflow. An experimental setting would add setup to a read-only audit page. **Roadmap alignment** This completes the operator view for the existing feedback feature. It supports human oversight and does not change agent execution or task ownership. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped, board-only list and detail endpoints with audit permission and source-task privacy checks. - Return bounded previews and counts. Fetch full bodies only when a message opens. - Add the Commentary tab, search, filters, 50-row pagination, and URL-based selection. Audit tab destinations work in both layouts, with a classic sidebar entry for Commentary. - Add production Storybook examples for populated, filtered, linked, long, paginated, empty, loading, failed, denied, mobile, and light states. - Update API documentation and the feature and agent access maps. ## Verification - Final head `abc4a251c14cfbfec007542214beec528f2b18bf`: 55 checks pass; two conditional Storybook checks are skipped. The PR workflow is successful. Greptile is 5/5 with all findings resolved. - Focused database, HTTP, submission, OpenAPI, and UI regression tests cover company isolation, task privacy, filter bounds, 50-row pagination, and copied message links. - Browser Storybook journeys cover row opening, direct links, combined filters, search, and pagination. Storybook uses synthetic API fixtures; database authorization is tested separately. - Token gates, feature maps, and Storybook catalog validation pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm build-storybook` pass on the rebased branch. All 80 focused tests and all 37 Audit tests pass, including the real App route table in both layouts, task grant/revocation through HTTP, deleted-task privacy, and URL UI regressions. The full suite passes in the parallel PR CI matrix. The local serial full-suite run was stopped before completion after checking the recorded 94-minute serial duration. Local focused tests, workspace typecheck, production build, and final server/UI checks pass. - The linked-message Storybook test initially asserted against the loading dialog. It now waits for the message body; both direct-link and row-open journeys pass. - Native and legacy deleted-task privacy regressions failed before the fix and pass afterward. The reader checks the run task binding after the task foreign key clears. - A rapid search-then-agent-filter browser regression reproduced the search overwriting the selected agent. The pending search now restarts when URL filters change. The same browser test passes with both filters applied. - CI found two existing AuditHub assertions that still expected five tabs. They now assert the six-tab model and selected-company Commentary rendering. All 37 Audit tests pass. All other test and build jobs passed before this test-only correction. - The [agent-chat attachment browser test](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39307881171/job/118250189664) timed out waiting for an attachment preview. The [same shard passed on the prior head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39306658703/job/118245498343) with identical application code; the intervening change only updates AuditHub unit tests. The single retry passed on the same head. The precise cause of the earlier failure remains unconfirmed. ## Risks - Commentary may contain sensitive task context. The reader requires board access and audit permission, and filters source-task visibility before returning previews, counts, or full bodies. - Text search scans stored message bodies. Pages are bounded and full bodies are fetched on demand. - Offset pagination can shift if new messages arrive while paging. Ordering uses timestamp and ID for stable ties. - No database migration or agent submission behavior changes are required. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use, browser interaction, and code execution. The exact backend model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
647116dd4b |
fix(adapter-utils): allow sandbox agents to read run diagnostics (#16575)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and its execution history. > - Sandbox agents use a callback bridge to reach the control plane. > - The API already provides authorized run diagnostics. > - The bridge denied those read routes before the API could check access. > - Health scans could see task activity but could not inspect failed runs. > - This pull request admits exact GET routes on both bridge transports. > - Linked task results also apply the caller's task-read filter. > - Agents can inspect failures through their existing run identity. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A sandbox health scan received `403 Route not allowed` for run history, run details, events, and task recovery records. The same agent could read task activity and connected provider state. The bridge stopped these diagnostic requests before they reached the API. **Expected behavior** The bridge should admit the existing diagnostic GET routes. The API must still enforce company and task access and redact run content. Execution and recovery writes must stay denied by these rules. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start an agent in a sandbox with the normal callback bridge. 2. Use its injected API credential to request company run history. 3. Request a run's details or events. 4. Observe the bridge's route denial before the API handles the request. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced with the callback route list on master at `9f4a956b906`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated server with a managed sandbox. Both queue and HTTP/2 transports use this route list. Related work: Refs #15854 adds separate cost-read routes to this list. It does not add run diagnostics. Searches found no duplicate run-diagnostic change. ## What Changed - Admit nine existing diagnostic GET paths: company history and live runs; run details, events, logs, workspace operations and task links; task runs and recovery records. - Reject other methods, extra path segments, execution control, recovery resolution, and provider-trace administration. - Filter linked tasks by the caller's task-read predicate in both activity and original-task queries. Keep those results in the run's company. A readable run must not expose private task titles. - Test both route lists and the HTTP/2 request path. Preserve query parameters and controller denial responses. Add a database regression with public and private tasks linked to a readable company run. - Document bounded diagnostic reads, private-run stubs, access checks, and credential handling in the agent API reference. Update both affected run access maps with the sandbox entry points and verification limits. ## Verification - Passed both bridge suites: 139 tests. - Passed the server run-route, activity-route, and secret-redaction suites: 117 tests, including the new task-link filter test. The cold route-import test needed a 30-second timeout on this host. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, the adapter-utils typecheck, both generated capability checks, and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`. - Attempted `pnpm test:run`. The bundled PostgreSQL binary cannot start on this host. The native session suite reported 15 database startup failures; the privacy suite skipped its 15 cases. Stopped that full local attempt after those failures. No full local-suite pass is claimed. The final 16-case privacy suite also skipped locally for the same host limitation; Linux CI ran all 16 cases successfully. - One unchanged queue-response test hit a file-read race during the combined local run. A separate rerun of both complete bridge suites passed all 139 cases. The transient race was not independently isolated; the original failure is retained in this record. - All CI gates pass on head `97c65cec459d3fc2787083d05ae6ec51e3fd7b70`. Linux CI passed all 16 database-backed run privacy cases, including the new public/private task-link regression. These also cover private-run denial, authorized owner/reviewer reads, redacted list stubs, credential diagnostics, and deleted-task handling: [serialized shard 1](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38925932547/job/117057907621). - Apex reviewed the final head at 5/5. Both findings are addressed and their review threads are resolved. - After deployment, run a new sandbox audit. Confirm it can list and inspect authorized failed runs without a board credential. This has not been deployed or live-tested by this PR. ## Risks - Sandbox agents can reach more diagnostic GET routes. The existing server access checks and redaction still apply. - Linked task results now omit tasks that the caller cannot read. Authorized task links remain visible. - This change does not grant execution control or recover a failed workspace. - Existing bridge sessions may need a new run to load the updated route list. - No schema, credential, UI, workflow, or lockfile change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with implementation and verification. The exact serving model ID and context-window limit are not exposed in this session. Capabilities used: code editing, shell execution, 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 (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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ebeac833a6 |
perf(runs): bound history and reduce repeated context reads (#16286)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps operators manage AI agents and inspect their work. > - Run history supplies recent execution records to the board and API clients. > - The list repeats eight reads of a large stored JSON context. > - A caller can also omit the limit and read the complete history. > - This pull request expands context fields once and bounds every list read. > - The benefit is lower database cost and bounded redaction work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #958. Related community reports: #13962 and #10631. This is an independent implementation. It does not use their commits or code. It covers the history bounds reported in both. Process memory monitoring from #10631 is outside this change. **What happened?** The run-history query repeatedly extracts fields from large context JSON. Requests without a limit also load every historical run before authorization and redaction. Accumulated staging query statistics showed 271 ms for summary history and another 58 ms for its redaction lookup. **What did you expect to happen?** Normal reads must use a bounded recent history. Context projection must preserve the existing values and privacy behavior with less repeated database work. **Steps to reproduce** Run the disposable benchmark below against the baseline revision. It creates 1,400 synthetic runs with 192 KiB contexts. It compares the exact service SQL and every returned column for both summary and full history. ## What Changed - Expand context fields with one lateral record projection. Preserve non-object legacy contexts and the first-class issue binding. - Enforce a 200-row default and a 1,000-row maximum in the route and service. - Apply the default in the shared UI client, including both agent detail implementations. - Preserve response arrays, authorization, result projection and secret redaction. - Fetch older linked runs by ID in both agent pages. Check company and agent scope, navigation races and visible retry errors. - Update OpenAPI, data-path documentation and capability maps. - Add real PostgreSQL and HTTP regressions plus a reproducible benchmark. ## Verification - Local benchmark: summary history 37.72 ms to 19.34 ms; full history 37.84 ms to 19.01 ms. All 200 complete positional rows match in each comparison. These are synthetic local SQL timings, excluding HTTP and redaction. - History, route, privacy and redaction suites: 160 server tests passed across six files. Twenty-two UI API, selection, run-panel and log-visibility tests passed. Both agent-page variants render an older linked run with an empty history page on desktop and mobile. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - Map validation and `git diff --check` passed. - All current-head CI and security checks passed, including the full general and serialized suites, browser shards, Runner verification and build. Greptile reviewed the exact commit at 5/5 with no remaining findings. - The full local sweep began before the final compatibility fixes. It was stopped after the final commits passed complete CI. The focused local suites listed above passed on the final code. Before interruption, the broader local sweep passed 31,743 tests across the general server, UI and several package groups, with no reported failures. The full local command is not claimed as a completed pass. ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/heartbeat/run-state.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-list.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-live-run-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/run-secret-redaction.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-privacy-routes.test.ts pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/api/heartbeats.test.ts pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-run-history.ts --baseline-ref=1e731520bb ``` ## Risks - Clients that relied on an unbounded array now receive 200 rows by default. Explicit limits allow up to 1,000. This change does not add pagination. - Legacy context conversion must stay identical. Real database regressions cover null, array, scalar, nested values and native issue precedence. - No schema migration or persistent cache is introduced. Redaction and access checks remain active. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, shell tools and local code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific backend 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> |
||
|
|
83e13db8fa |
fix(inbox): keep automatic recovery cleanup out of personal participation (#16063)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The personal inbox uses issue activity to identify a person's participation. > - Issue reads can cancel stale recovery actions and record that cleanup as the reader's action. > - This adds unrelated tasks to the inbox and refreshes their activity timestamps. > - A workspace owner hold can also alternate between creation and cancellation after a task finishes. > - This pull request corrects cleanup attribution, excludes historical read cleanup, and retains one exact owner hold. > - Agents can read authorized issue activity to diagnose the same problem themselves. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15742 excludes logs by the execution-recovery actor from activity timestamps. This PR covers reader-attributed stale recovery cleanup, personal inbox participation, exact workspace owner holds, and sandbox issue activity access. I searched open issues and PRs for recovery inbox and activity bridge fixes. I found no duplicate for this defect. **What happened?** Loading issue lists cancels stale recovery actions under the reader's identity. The personal inbox treats those rows as user participation. One completed issue had hundreds of such rows and no edits or comments by the affected reader. A retained native workspace owner repeatedly creates a verification action that read projections then cancel. Sandbox agents cannot inspect the issue activity because the reverse bridge rejects the route. **Expected behavior** Automatic cleanup belongs to the system and does not add an issue to a reader's inbox. Historical cleanup rows remain auditable but do not count as participation or recent activity. An unresolved physical workspace owner keeps one stable verification action. Agents can inspect activity only for issues their identity may read. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Finish a task whose native run retains an unverifiable workspace owner receipt. 2. Repeat workspace recovery checks and GET requests for issue detail, compact lists, and recovery actions. 3. Observe new recovery action IDs and reader-attributed cancellations in the activity history. 4. Query the personal inbox for that reader and observe the unrelated task. 5. From a sandbox agent, request GET /api/issues/:id/activity and observe Route not allowed. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed at |
||
|
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> |