Commit Graph
3 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
Devin FoleyandPaperclip 0b62c736a0 feat(connections): add generic Daytona API and Toolbox access (#16483)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Apps connections give agents controlled access to external services.
> - Daytona provides sandbox, file, command, Git, and account APIs.
> - Operators need to assign this access without exposing a server
credential.
> - A small task-specific tool list cannot serve general Daytona work.
> - This pull request adds the published HTTP actions through the
existing connection gateway.
> - Operators keep control of identity, agent access, and each action.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Problem or motivation**

Paperclip has a Daytona sandbox provider for its own execution
infrastructure. It lacks a normal Apps connection for agents to manage
an operator's Daytona account. Reusing the server's provider credential
would bypass normal connection ownership and action permissions.

**Proposed solution**

Add a Daytona connection with personal or shared vault credentials.
Generate its action catalog from the official platform and Toolbox API
specifications. Use the existing run-bound gateway, grants, action
policies, approvals, revocation, and audit paths. Sandbox IDs come from
Daytona; tools need no Paperclip task or lease ID.

**Alternatives considered**

A four-action diagnostic subset cannot support general provider work.
Launching the provider CLI would expose host filesystem behavior. Native
OAuth is not included because a supported third-party registration path
was not verified. The native method uses an organization API key.
Existing Composio setup is a separate possible OAuth route and is not
qualified by this change.

**Roadmap alignment**

This extends the existing Apps and Connections provider coverage in
`ROADMAP.md`. It uses that system's credential and permission model.
GitHub searches found no existing Daytona Apps connector PR or issue.

## What Changed

- Add the Daytona catalog entry, provider source override, official
theme logos, permission review, and setup documentation.
- Generate 274 HTTP actions: 169 platform and 105 Toolbox operations.
Record two WebSocket upgrades separately; do not advertise them as HTTP
tools. Record source URLs and hashes.
- Add provider-focused execution for sandboxes, snapshots, volumes,
files, Git, commands, computer use, and account resources. Provider
authority still limits which endpoints accept an organization key.
- Validate action arguments. Resolve Toolbox targets through the fixed
platform API. Check sandbox identity and organization before using an
approved Daytona proxy. Keep normal guarded network requests and vault
resolution.
- Transfer file bytes without reading or writing host files. Share one
caller deadline across prerequisite reads, dispatch, and response
reading. Bound requests and responses. Do not automatically retry writes
with unknown outcomes. Redact the selected credential from results and
errors.
- Classify credential access, access changes, interactive input, command
execution, file permissions, and deletion (including TTL and
auto-delete) as destructive actions. Keep new and changed actions under
catalog review.
- Upgrade saved catalogs and retire the earlier diagnostic names. Hide
retired actions from the UI and agent discovery even when provider
refresh fails. Preserve existing action choices and historical records.
Reject stale same-name contracts during agent discovery and dispatch
before a board refresh.
- Add database-backed gateway and catalog-upgrade regressions, schema
generator tests, a browser setup check, and both capability map updates.

## Verification

- Passed on the review-fix head: 57 focused Vitest cases (18 Daytona
database/client cases, five HTTP boundary cases, and 34 shared catalog
cases), four generator tests, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`. The
five HTTP cases use a real local server through the pinned production
transport. The normal browser setup check and 17 generator/artwork cases
passed on the initial PR head; those UI and artwork paths are unchanged.
- Passed on this branch: brand asset validation, token gates, map
structure checks, and `git diff --check`. All latest-head GitHub checks
pass on `ea979ccb3a64dc9508807823540f935c4316ea35`. Apex is 5/5, with
all five findings addressed and zero unresolved threads. The branch has
no merge conflicts.
- The initial catalog-generation command could not find the external
research corpus. The supported `--definitions-only` mode regenerated the
definitions successfully. Unrelated generated drift was excluded.
- An earlier full local Vitest attempt on the preview branch failed when
bundled PostgreSQL could not start on macOS. After replay onto current
master, all three unchanged event-sequencing cases pass with bundled
PostgreSQL; the earlier startup cause remains uncertain.
- The first full-suite command on this branch used my external test
database override. Chat fixtures require a current migrated schema and
failed because `agents.lifecycle_state` was absent in that disposable
database. A focused comparison reproduces failure with the override and
passes with normal setup. That attempt was stopped, and the full suite
restarted without the override. Focused Daytona cases use their own
migrated PostgreSQL 16 databases.
- The clean local full-suite attempt recorded embedded PostgreSQL
startup failures in two unchanged native-runtime cases and two failures
in unchanged Git fixtures. It was stopped after these failures were
isolated; no full local suite pass is claimed. The 15 matching
native-runtime cases pass separately. The Git cases fail with the local
`init.defaultBranch=main` setting and pass with `GIT_CONFIG_COUNT=1
GIT_CONFIG_KEY_0=init.defaultBranch GIT_CONFIG_VALUE_0=master` limited
to the test command. No global Git setting was changed. Full Linux CI is
green.
- Fixtures use real database persistence and run-bound gateway sessions
with provider responses replaced by fixtures. They cover personal/shared
vault ownership, reads and writes, file bytes, Off policies, revocation,
organization mismatch, untrusted proxy rejection, output bounds, saved
catalog upgrades, failed refresh, and permission preservation.
- The first Apex review found five valid issues: multipart transport
compatibility, destructive classification, caller deadlines, audit
filters, and stale saved contracts. All five were fixed with regressions
before the second review. A typecheck then found the nullable saved
schema hash; admission now accepts that stored type and rejects null as
stale.
- The browser check covers setup controls without submitting a provider
key. No real Daytona account, provider write, native OAuth flow, or
agent model run is qualified. Live provider read/write proof remains
pending a test account.

## Risks

- Daytona keys have broad Toolbox authority, including keys with no
selected resource scopes. Only assign this connection to trusted agents
and review its action permissions.
- Remote writes or commands can continue after a timeout. Calls do not
automatically retry an uncertain outcome.
- The bridge targets Daytona Cloud. Proxy hosts are restricted; an
unrecognized future regional host fails closed.
- Files and responses have an 8 MiB bound. Each action has one caller
deadline, capped at 30 seconds across all provider requests and response
reading. Interactive WebSocket sessions are not exposed as HTTP actions.
- The generated JSON snapshot exceeds 1,000 lines because it holds the
provider input contracts. Generator logic and execution code remain in
separate small modules. Updates require explicit regeneration and
catalog review.
- No database migration or lockfile change is required.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The runtime identifies the model family but does
not expose the exact backend model ID or context window. Used reasoning,
repository inspection, code editing, shell tools, database verification,
and browser 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
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-15 14:05:26 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip 833769ab55 perf(chat): schedule Telegram maintenance from commits and deadlines (#16094)
Replace periodic Telegram discovery and maintenance scans with bounded startup recovery, connection-specific commit notifications, and durable action deadlines. Preserve ownership, inactive subscription parking, retry and cleanup recovery, and atomic credential binding updates.

Verified full typecheck/build, 30 focused scheduler tests, 12 database-backed recovery cases, all current-head CI checks, and Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-13 07:55:27 -07:00
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>
2026-10-12 14:52:28 -05:00