mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 20:05:57 +02:00
e0c2448267721f672bc2cb6cd16f6da99fdcf89e
26
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
627728bdde |
feat: add authoritative issue PATCH receipts (#10478)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents update tasks through the issue API. > - The update response did not state which values changed. > - Blocker updates also did not echo the scalar blocker IDs. > - Agents therefore used an extra GET request to confirm a successful write. > - This pull request adds an authoritative change receipt and an optional small response. > - The benefit is fewer API calls with a clear and compatible write contract. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and the UI issue cache. ### Problem or motivation A successful issue PATCH returned the updated issue, but it did not identify the effective changes. Blocker writes returned relation summaries without the scalar IDs. Agents could not distinguish a confirmed clear operation from missing data. The response must confirm committed field and blocker changes while existing UI clients continue to receive the full issue by default. ### Proposed solution Add a `changes` receipt. Add a conditional `blockedByIssueIds` echo. Support `Prefer: return=minimal`. Keep the full response as the default. ### Alternatives considered Make the small response the default for agent tokens. This would create different response contracts by actor type, so this pull request does not use that design. ### Roadmap alignment This is a focused control-plane reliability improvement. It does not duplicate an open roadmap milestone. ## What Changed - Compute committed issue row and relation changes in the issue service. - Omit no-op fields and truncate changed long text values to 200 characters. - Echo blocker ID arrays for blocker set and clear requests. - Add the opt-in `Prefer: return=minimal` response and `Preference-Applied` header. - Keep receipt metadata out of React Query issue caches. - Add route and embedded Postgres tests for the new contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "returns authoritative update receipts for row fields and blocker relations"` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low compatibility risk. The default response only adds receipt fields. - Minimal mode is opt-in. Existing clients do not receive a smaller body. - The receipt excludes `updatedAt` because the response already returns it as the freshness anchor. - Prose API and agent workflow guidance will follow after the server contract is available. > 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 Codex based on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID, context window size, and reasoning mode are not exposed to the agent. The agent used repository tools, code 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> |
||
|
SamandSami Rusani
|
39666aa906 |
fix(server): clarify execution policy decision comments (#9105)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Execution policies let issues move through enforced review and
approval stages before work is considered done.
> - Active reviewers and approvers must include decision rationale when
approving or requesting changes.
> - The server already requires the decision comment to arrive in the
same `PATCH /api/issues/:id` request as the status change.
> - When callers post a normal comment first and then send a status-only
`PATCH`, the existing 422 only says a comment is required.
> - This pull request keeps the atomic decision behavior but makes the
API error and docs explicit about the same-request requirement.
> - The benefit is that agents and API clients can recover immediately
by sending `{ status, comment }` together instead of dead-ending on an
ambiguous validation error.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes #9049.
Duplicate/related search completed before implementation: searched open
PRs for `9049`, `Approving a review or approval stage requires a
comment`, `Requesting changes requires a comment`, and `same PATCH`. I
did not find a direct open PR for the same error-message/docs fix.
Related PRs found but not duplicates: #8302 documents cross-agent review
gates in the skill API reference, and #5487 covers human approval UI.
## What Changed
- Expanded execution-policy 422 messages for approve and request-changes
decisions to say the comment must be included in the same `PATCH`
request and prior comments are not considered.
- Tightened unit coverage so the comment-required branches assert the
new actionable guidance.
- Documented the same-request `{ status, comment }` decision shape in
the execution policy guide, issue API reference, and agent communication
guide.
## Verification
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts --reporter verbose`
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk exec node
../../../scripts/ensure-plugin-build-deps.mjs`
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
Low risk. This does not change execution-policy state transitions or
relax the atomic decision guard; it only makes the existing requirement
explicit in errors and docs.
> 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 Codex (GPT-5 Codex), operating in Codex desktop with repository
file access, shell validation, and GitHub CLI workflow. Exact context
window size is not surfaced by this environment.
## 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: Sami Rusani <sr@samirusani>
|
||
|
|
0b496c9c03 |
feat(secrets): add run-bound agent secret access (#9921)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Agents already receive selected company secrets through `env.*` bindings at run launch, but environment injection is ambient, long-lived, and not suitable for every secret consumer. > - The existing binding and secret-access-event models already provide company-scoped authorization and per-resolution audit seams. > - Agents need an explicit way to discover only the secrets granted to them and fetch a value on demand without exposing the wider company catalog. > - That capability must remain run-bound, preserve low-trust token carve-outs, and make every value read visible in both security and operator audit trails. > - This pull request adds an `access.*` delivery namespace, two run-bound agent routes, dual audit logging, documentation, and an operator grants editor. > - The benefit is least-privilege, revocable, auditable secret access while preserving existing env injection behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No pre-existing public issue. Related work: - Refs #9797 — existing in-sheet agent access UI that this PR extends to distinguish env and API delivery. - Refs #9918 — complementary searchable-agent picker improvement for the same secrets sheet. - Refs #9530 — related company-wide metadata catalog proposal; this PR intentionally exposes only the authenticated run's granted aliases and values. **Problem / motivation:** Agents can currently consume secrets only through process environment injection. This keeps values resident for the run, does not support on-demand consumers, and cannot provide a discrete operator-visible activity event for each agent-initiated read. **Proposed solution:** Treat `company_secret_bindings` as the source of truth for agent secret grants. Keep `env.KEY` as env delivery and add `access.ALIAS` for API-only delivery; an env binding also implies read access because the value is already present in the agent process. Add run-bound list/fetch endpoints that derive scope from the authenticated heartbeat run and never accept caller-selected overlays. **Alternatives considered:** A company-wide agent-readable catalog was rejected for this value path because it increases reconnaissance and does not prove a per-secret grant. Reusing the ephemeral environment-probe resolver was rejected because it lacks binding enforcement. Approval-gated reads and user-scoped secrets remain deferred beyond v1. **Roadmap alignment:** This extends the completed **Secrets Manager with per-agent access** roadmap capability from launch-time env injection to explicit run-bound API delivery without duplicating a separate planned initiative. ## What Changed - Added `access.*` agent binding validation and a dedicated run-bound resolver that combines `secrets:read` authorization with binding-context enforcement. - Added `GET /api/agents/me/secrets` for minimal granted metadata and `POST /api/agents/me/secrets/:key/value` for on-demand value fetches with `Cache-Control: no-store`. - Preserved the existing denials for low-trust review agents, task-bridge credentials, and skill-test tokens; standard long-lived agent API keys cannot call the run-bound routes. - Added dual audit behavior: value attempts write `secret_access_events` and `activity_log` (`secret.value.read`), while metadata listing writes the lighter `secret.access.listed` activity event. - Kept env compatibility: `env.*` remains injected at launch and also implies API read for the same bound agent; `access.*` never becomes an environment variable. - Added the agent-settings **Secret access** editor plus delivery-mode/alias surfacing on the Secrets page, with focused UI tests and tokenized layout styles. - Updated OpenAPI, shared types, agent-facing skill documentation, and API reference documentation. ### UI Screenshots P3 produced and reviewed three screenshots using mock data; images are intentionally not committed to the repository: - `secret-access-editor.png` — agent settings grant editor. - `secret-access-light.png` — Secrets-page delivery surfacing in light mode. - `secret-access-dark.png` — Secrets-page delivery surfacing in dark mode. The source attachments are retained with the implementation task and linked in the internal handoff; the public page publisher was unavailable in the PR-prep runtime. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/secret-delivery.test.ts ui/src/components/AgentSecretAccessEditor.test.tsx` — 5 files, 122 tests passed. - Security follow-up: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` — 2 files, 73 tests passed after active-run and version-consistency fixes. - Final-head CI: all feature, typecheck, build, e2e, security, and review gates pass; `General tests (server (1/3))` remains red after one rerun because unrelated `heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts` cleanup deletes `heartbeat_runs` before referenced `activity_log` rows. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — feature-local arbitrary-value violations fixed; command still reports five unchanged `#9627` literals outside this PR. - End-to-end QA passed all eight acceptance criteria: grant/list, fetch, dual audit, env-implies-read, denial matrix, revocation, UI rendering, and env-injection regression. Evidence: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9921#issuecomment-5027455492 - Security review returned PASS-with-required-changes; the implementation uses the required dedicated binding-enforcing resolver, run-bound JWT restriction, run-derived overlays, minimal metadata, and a resolver redaction-registration hook. Evidence: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9921#issuecomment-5027455382 ## Risks - A compromised agent can exfiltrate any secret explicitly granted to it; explicit company-scoped/run-scoped grants, revocation, and audit reduce but cannot remove that inherent capability risk. - The resolver invokes a redaction-registration hook before returning values, but the current route has no persistent cross-request per-run redaction registry. Paperclip-owned later comments/events therefore cannot yet guarantee automatic scrubbing of a deliberately copied fetched value; QA classified this as non-blocking residual hardening. - Audit-event insertion currently fails open if the security-event insert itself fails; the operator activity event provides partial redundancy, but a future hardening change should define fail-closed behavior for value delivery. - This PR overlaps `ui/src/pages/Secrets.tsx` with #9918 and may require a straightforward rebase after that PR moves. > 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 Codex, `gpt-5.3-codex`, with reasoning, repository tool use, terminal execution, Paperclip API access, and GitHub CLI capabilities. Context-window size is not exposed by the runtime. - Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with 1M context and tool use assisted with the UI implementation commit. ## 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
ad961227f5 |
feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > 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 Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
2d1b531a49 |
[codex] Add clear-error agent action (#7695)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runtime state is surfaced in both the server API and the board UI so operators can tell whether an agent is idle, running, paused, or in error. > - When an agent is already in `error`, the existing pause/resume action slot is not useful because there is no running work to pause. > - Operators need a direct, audited recovery path that clears the stale error state only for agents in the same company. > - This pull request adds a company-scoped clear-error mutation, exposes the shared API contract, and wires the board action cluster to show Clear error in the pause/resume slot for errored agents. > - The benefit is that operators can recover CEO/CTO-style errored agents without resorting to database edits or unrelated session reset actions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #4021 Paperclip issue: PAP-10515 — right now the CEO and CTO agents are in error state, but there is no way to clear the error; they appear otherwise fine. ## What Changed - Added shared constants, API path, and agent status type support for a company-scoped clear-error action. - Added the server service and route to clear an agent from `error` back to `idle`, with company access enforcement and activity logging. - Added OpenAPI/docs coverage for the clear-error endpoint. - Added backend coverage for service behavior and cross-tenant authorization. - Updated the board agent action cluster to show a red-tinted Clear error button only when `agent.status === "error"`. - Updated agent properties to show a red active last-error indicator only while the agent is currently errored. - Added UI component tests for the error-state action and the non-error pause/resume behavior. ## Verification Local: - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agents-service-clear-error.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/AgentActionButtons.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` PR checks: - Main Paperclip workflow is green on `a7378e584d50594e7bd507a1a02985bfaaa5abf8`. - Greptile is 5/5 with no files requiring special attention and no new comments on the latest review. - `commitperclip PR Review` is still red because its security-gate step canceled after filing a draft advisory; the linked `security-review` check is neutral and says the draft advisory is not a merge block. Visual artifact: -  ## Risks Low to medium risk. The mutation is intentionally narrow, but reviewers should check that clearing `lastError`/`lastRunError` and returning to `idle` is the desired recovery semantics for every adapter state. The remaining red check is from the external commitperclip security-review workflow, not from the code/test workflow for this PR. > 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 Codex, GPT-5-family coding model, tool-assisted with local shell, git, GitHub CLI, and targeted Vitest 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [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 - [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 |
||
|
|
778e775c35 |
Add secrets provider vaults and remote import (#5429)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies and needs secrets handling to work across local development, hosted operators, and governed agent execution. > - The affected subsystem is the company-scoped secrets control plane: database schema, server services/routes, CLI workflows, and the Secrets settings UI. > - The gap was that secrets were local-only and operators could not manage provider vaults or import existing remote references without exposing plaintext. > - This branch adds provider vault configuration plus an AWS Secrets Manager remote-import path while preserving company boundaries, binding context, and audit trails. > - I kept the PR to a single branch PR, removed unrelated lockfile/package drift, rebased the full branch onto the current `public-gh/master`, and addressed fresh Greptile findings. > - The benefit is a reviewable implementation of provider-backed secrets with focused tests covering provider selection, import conflicts, deleted secret reuse, rotation guards, and AWS signing behavior. ## What Changed - Added provider vault support for company secrets, including provider config storage, default vault handling, health checks, binding usage, access events, and remote import preview/commit. - Added an AWS Secrets Manager provider using SigV4 request signing, bounded request timeouts, namespace guardrails, cached runtime credential resolution, and external-reference linking without plaintext reads. - Added Secrets UI surfaces for vault management and remote import, plus CLI/API documentation for setup and operations. - Stabilized routine webhook secret binding paths and SSH environment-driver fixture bindings discovered during verification. - Addressed Greptile and CI findings: no lockfile/package drift, monotonic migration metadata, disabled-vault default races, soft-deleted secret hiding/recreate behavior, remove behavior with disabled vaults, soft-deleted external-reference re-import, non-active rotation guards, managed-secret soft deletion through PATCH, and per-call AWS SDK credential client churn. - Rebased this branch onto `public-gh/master` at `0e1a5828` and force-pushed with lease to keep this as the single PR for the branch. ## Verification - `git fetch public-gh master` - `git rebase public-gh/master` - `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | grep '^pnpm-lock\.yaml$' || true` confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the PR diff. - Confirmed migration ordering: master ends at `0081_optimal_dormammu`; this PR adds `0082_dry_vision` and `0083_company_secret_provider_configs`. - Inspected migrations for repeat safety: new tables/indexes use `IF NOT EXISTS`; foreign keys are guarded by `DO $$ ... IF NOT EXISTS`; column additions use `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. - `pnpm test:run` ran the full stable Vitest path before the Greptile follow-up commits; it completed with 3 timing-related failures under parallel load: `codex-local-execute.test.ts`, `cursor-local-execute.test.ts`, and `environment-service.test.ts`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts` passed on targeted rerun (`24/24`). - `pnpm build` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. Vite reported existing chunk-size/dynamic-import warnings. - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`26/26`). - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`39/39`). - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - Captured Storybook screenshots from `ui/storybook-static` for visual review. - Latest PR checks on `5ca3a5cf`: `policy`, serialized server suites 1/4-4/4, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review` pass; aggregate `verify` is still registering the completed child checks. - Greptile review loop continued through the latest requested pass; all Greptile review threads are resolved and the latest `Greptile Review` check on `5ca3a5cf` passed with 0 comments added. ## Screenshots Before: the provider-vault and remote-import surfaces did not exist on `master`; these are after-state screenshots from the Storybook fixtures.    ## Risks - Migration risk: this adds new secret provider tables and extends existing secret rows. The migrations were checked for monotonic ordering and idempotent guards, but reviewers should still inspect upgrade behavior carefully. - Provider risk: AWS support uses direct SigV4 requests. Automated tests cover signing, request timeouts, vault-config selection, namespace guardrails, pending-version archival, sanitized provider errors, and service-level cleanup paths. A real-vault AWS smoke test remains deployment validation for an operator with AWS credentials rather than an unverified merge blocker in this local branch. - UI risk: the Secrets page and import dialog are large new surfaces; screenshots are included above for reviewer inspection. - Verification risk: the full local stable test command hit parallel-load timing failures, although the exact failed files passed when rerun directly. - Operational risk: remote import intentionally avoids plaintext reads; operators must understand that imported external references resolve at runtime and may fail if AWS permissions change. > 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 Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with local shell/tool use in the Paperclip worktree. Exact context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d6d7a7cea6 |
Add routine revision history and restore flow (#5285)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Routines are the scheduled/recurring work surface that keeps a company operating without manual kicks. > - Operators need routine edits to be auditable and recoverable, especially when routines control assignments, prompts, triggers, and webhook secrets. > - Documents already have revision-style safety, but routines did not have equivalent history or restore semantics. > - This pull request adds append-only routine revisions across the database, shared contracts, server routes, and board UI. > - The benefit is safer routine iteration: users can inspect history, compare changes, restore older definitions, and avoid overwriting newer edits. ## What Changed - Added `routine_revisions` storage, latest revision pointers on routines, shared types, validators, and API docs for routine revision history. - Added server service/route support for listing routine revisions, conflict-aware routine saves, and append-only restore operations. - Added a History tab on routine detail with revision preview, structured change summaries, description line diffs, dirty-edit blocking, restore confirmation, and restored webhook secret surfacing. - Extracted the line diff helper from `DocumentDiffModal` into `ui/src/lib/line-diff.ts` for reuse. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and renumbered the routine revision migration to `0077_unusual_karnak` after upstream `0076_useful_elektra`. - Made the `0077` routine revision migration idempotent so installs that already applied the branch-local `0076_unusual_karnak` can safely advance. - Updated the plugin SDK test harness routine fixture with the new revision fields required by the shared `Routine` contract. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/lib/line-diff.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` passed after updating the SDK test harness fixture. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` passed; this refreshed local generated SDK output needed by plugin example typechecks. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds routine revision storage and backfills existing routines. The migration is ordered after upstream `0076` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards to tolerate earlier branch-local migration application. - Restore behavior intentionally appends a new revision instead of mutating history; callers expecting an in-place rollback need to follow the new latest revision pointer. - Restoring webhook triggers recreates webhook secret material, so users must copy newly surfaced secrets after restore. - Conflict-aware saves now reject stale routine edits when the client sends an older `baseRevisionId`. > 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 Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, with shell/tool use in a local git worktree. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Screenshots: not attached in this draft PR; the new UI flow is covered by component tests listed above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a957394420 |
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > 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 Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7f893ac4ec |
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep regressions visible > - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area > - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch overlapping issue APIs > - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat, telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting ## What Changed - Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and blocked-to-todo wake resumption - Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads, compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces - Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material - Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation from local state, and repo verification follow-ups - Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were dropped during branch reconstruction ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts` - `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they are noted as environment-limited ## Risks - Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow rather than isolated UI polish - Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure modes and not just reshaping harness behavior ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning enabled, tool use and local code execution 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) - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
cd2be692e9 |
Fix in-review task recheckout guidance
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Aron PrinsandClaude Sonnet 4.6
|
f87db64ba9 |
docs(api/routines): address three review findings
**#1 — Missing `description` field in fields table** The create body example included `description` and the schema confirms `description: z.string().optional().nullable()`, but the reference table omitted it. Added as an optional field. **#2 — Concurrency policy descriptions were inaccurate** Original docs described both `coalesce_if_active` and `skip_if_active` as variants of "skip", which was wrong. Source-verified against `server/src/services/routines.ts` (dispatchRoutineRun, line 568): const status = concurrencyPolicy === "skip_if_active" ? "skipped" : "coalesced"; Both policies write identical DB state (same linkedIssueId and coalescedIntoRunId); the only difference is the run status value. Descriptions now reflect this: both finalise the incoming run immediately and link it to the active run — no new issue is created in either case. Note: the reviewer's suggestion that `coalesce_if_active` "extends or notifies" the active run was also not supported by the code; corrected accordingly. **#3 — `triggerId` undocumented in Manual Run** `runRoutineSchema` accepts `triggerId` and the service genuinely uses it (routines.ts:1029–1034): fetches the trigger, enforces that it belongs to the routine (403) and is enabled (409), then passes it to dispatchRoutineRun which records the run against the trigger and updates its `lastFiredAt`. Added `triggerId` to the example body and documented all three behaviours. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Aron PrinsandClaude Sonnet 4.6
|
f42aebdff8 |
docs(api): add Routines reference
Routines are recurring tasks that fire on a schedule, webhook, or API call and create a heartbeat run for the assigned agent. Document the full CRUD surface including: - List / get routines - Create with concurrency and catch-up policy options - Add schedule, webhook, and api triggers - Update / delete triggers, rotate webhook secrets - Manual run and public trigger fire - List run history - Agent access rules (agents can only manage own routines) - Routine lifecycle (active → paused → archived) Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Aron PrinsandClaude Sonnet 4.6
|
4ebc12ab5a |
docs(api): fix goal status value and document checkout re-claim pattern
- Fix goals-and-projects.md: `completed` is not a valid status — correct to `achieved` and document all valid values (planned/active/achieved/cancelled) - Fix issues.md: document that `expectedStatuses: ["in_progress"]` can be used to re-claim a stale lock after a crashed run; clarify that `runId` in the request body is not accepted (run ID comes from X-Paperclip-Run-Id header only) Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
6eceb9b886 | Use attachment-size limit for company logos | ||
|
Dotta
|
4dfd862f11 | Address Greptile company logo feedback | ||
|
Dotta
|
e538329b0a | Use asset-backed company logos | ||
|
Dotta
|
1a5eaba622 | Merge public-gh/master into review/pr-162 | ||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
45998aa9a0 |
feat(issues): add issue documents and inline editing
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
JonCSykes
|
a4702e48f9 |
Add sanitization for SVG uploads and enhance security headers for asset responses
- Introduced SVG sanitization using `dompurify` to prevent malicious content. - Updated tests to validate SVG sanitization with various scenarios. - Enhanced response headers for assets, adding CSP and nosniff for SVGs. - Adjusted UI to better clarify supported file types for logo uploads. - Updated dependencies to include `jsdom` and `dompurify`. |
||
|
JonCSykes
|
b19d0b6f3b | Add support for company logos, including schema adjustments, validation, assets handling, and UI display enhancements. | ||
|
Konan69
|
6a101e0da1 | Add OpenCode provider integration and strict model selection | ||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 4.6
|
09d2ef1a37 |
fix: restore docs deleted in v0.2.3 release, add Paperclip branding
- Restored docs/ directory that was accidentally deleted by `git add -A` in the v0.2.3 release script - Replaced generic "P" favicon with actual paperclip icon using brand primary color (#2563EB) - Added light/dark logo SVGs for Mintlify navbar (paperclip icon + wordmark) - Updated docs.json with logo configuration for dark/light mode - Fixed release.sh to stage only release-related files instead of `git add -A` to prevent sweeping unrelated changes into release commits Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
28bf5e9e9b | chore: release v0.2.3 | ||
|
Dotta
|
cabd16bc70 | docs: sync docs and skills updates from backup branch | ||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 4.6
|
ff472af343 |
feat: project workspace clear/update UX and creation docs
Add granular workspace management — clear local folder or repo URL independently instead of deleting the whole workspace. Fix project create route typing. Document inline workspace creation in API docs and skill references. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
ForgottenandClaude Opus 4.6
|
02dc46e782 |
docs: add external documentation site content
Add structured documentation covering quickstart, architecture, core concepts, API reference, adapter guides, CLI commands, deployment options, and operator/developer guides. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
