mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-14 08:53:19 +01:00
f7d41ca5bf0221f58353bbdf9c0930ff6533b201
264
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
601babe322 |
fix(chat): let agents read saved trace export status and give chat real company page paths (#20998)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - People talk to their agents in chat, and agents answer from the
company's saved settings
> - A board member can save a company trace export (an OTLP collector or
Braintrust) in Company settings
> - The settings route is for board connection managers only, so an
agent cannot read it
> - In a chat eval, the board saved and tested a collector. The agent
checked only its own config and secrets, and then told the person that
nothing was configured
> - Chat guidance also names company pages as `/<prefix>/...`. In
another eval, the agent copied that placeholder into a link, and the
link opened nothing
> - This pull request gives agents a read-only status of the trace
export, and gives chat the real company prefix in page paths
> - The benefit is that agents answer from saved settings, and the links
they write open real pages
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
1. A board member saved and tested a trace export destination. The chat
agent was asked to acknowledge the saved configuration. The agent said
that no collector endpoint or credentials existed. Agents get 403 from
`GET /api/companies/{companyId}/observability`, and no other route
reports the saved state.
2. An agent reply linked `/<prefix>/company/settings/instance`. The chat
rendered it as `/%3Cprefix%3E/...`, which is not a real page. The
placeholder came from the chat directive, which names pages such as
`/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/profile`.
**Expected behavior**
1. An agent can read whether the company's trace export is configured,
enabled and credentialed, and the result of its latest test. The agent
cannot read the destination or any credential.
2. The chat directive and API search results that an agent reads give
real company paths, such as `/COM/company/settings/instance/profile`.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. As a board member, save and test an agent observability destination
in Company settings.
2. In chat, ask the CEO agent to acknowledge that the test collector
configuration is saved.
3. See that the agent cannot read the saved settings and denies them.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at
|
||
|
|
8818402e7a |
feat(inbox): route requests to people and record personal outcomes (#20959)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - The inbox collects requests that need a human decision. > - Teams need to know who owns each request and who may act on it. > - A shared close operation must differ from hiding a card for one person. > - This pull request adds personal routing and durable outcomes to the existing attention service. > - People can claim or transfer work and inspect what another person did for them. > - Domain permissions still decide who may resolve each request. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Server, shared contracts, and database. This is the routing foundation for a stacked inbox UI change. **Problem or motivation** A company-wide attention feed does not give teams a clear personal queue. Archive, withdrawal, transfer, and decisions by another person need distinct scopes and records. **Proposed solution** Resolve a request audience from its addressee, task participants, and configured owners. Provide personal, unassigned, company, all-assignee, and archived views. Add claim, transfer, personal archive and snooze, shared withdrawal, receipts, and personal history. **Alternatives considered** A single shared inbox leaves ownership and personal hiding ambiguous. The service keeps one canonical request and projects its audience instead of copying requests for each person. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing Multiple Human Users and Agent Reviews and Approvals capabilities in ROADMAP.md. **Additional context** Refs #19363 and #19520 for the current inbox navigation and confirmation replacement rules. Refs #20268 for related actionable-request work. That PR filters actionability; this stack adds audience routing and personal outcomes. This is part 1 of a two-PR stack. The inbox UI PR #20961 targets this branch. ## What Changed - Add nullable company and project decision owners and a company budget owner. - Add audience views and personal badge counts to the canonical attention projections. - Add claim, transfer, withdrawal, personal archive, snooze, and restore operations with permission checks and activity records. Lock addressed transfers to the current addressee or routing administrators, and validate the recipient against canonical resolution policies. - Add receipts and scoped history for work handled by another person. - Keep closed-task requests and replaced confirmations out of current cards. - Add an idempotent migration and a concurrent receipt-history index. - Update typed fixtures so the existing UI remains compatible with the new contracts. ## Verification - Server layered typechecking passes, including all three test-tree partitions. - Seven routing and interaction-resolution suites pass all 249 tests against a dedicated external PostgreSQL test database on `4caecc21d8`. Six new regressions failed before the repair; they cover takeover followed by approval, legitimate delegation, excluded creators/review requesters, and unauthorized claims. - Prior focused verification covers private approval history and receipts, transfer visibility, audience escalation, withdrawal governance, hidden-card counts, per-recipient confirmation replacement, and SDK source contracts. - A synthetic three-person company passed 37 routing and lifecycle acceptance checks. The UI stack adds browser acceptance for the shared controls. - The complete [GitHub Actions CI matrix](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/43134997331) passes on `4caecc21d891677323a7335f23b1a015cce24c13` (Linux/Node 24: typecheck, build, general and serialized tests, Runner support, browser shards, and aggregate gates). Greptile is 5/5 on that exact head with no open findings. The fresh security scan passes after explicitly rechecking the addressee-transfer repair. - `pnpm verify` reports exit 2 because a CI-global script changed; full CI supplies that broader coverage. Embedded PostgreSQL could not start on this Mac because shared-memory slots were exhausted, so local database checks use a separate external test database. Linux CI covers the embedded setup. ## Risks - Personal badge counts change to the viewer's assigned requests. Accessible feed totals and task membership keep their existing scope. - The migration adds nullable owner fields and a dismissal fingerprint. Its index runs outside a transaction. The migration is classified and rerunnable. - Routing changes the addressee used by resolution authorization. The current addressee or a routing administrator must authorize an addressed transfer; the recipient must satisfy writer access, canonical resolver exclusions, and task review policy under row locks. - The shared validator export barrel crosses 1,000 lines because it exports the new attention schemas. Schema implementation stays in the dedicated attention validator module. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used repository tools, code execution, and browser checks. This session does not expose a more specific runtime model ID or its 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 described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run focused tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (OpenAPI contracts and docs/api/attention.md) - [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: Scott Tong <scott@scottsmbpm5max.lan> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
TonioandPaperclip
|
9dfdeaad86 |
Refine agent workspaces and organization charts (#20973)
Refine agent details, identity editing, responsive controls, and organization charts with three card tiers, clearer save feedback, and stable filtering. Guard instruction-file renames and root configuration updates in one transaction through the agent lifecycle integration, preserving conflict checks, rollback, and configuration history. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
7cd5558e41 |
fix(authz): send agents denied a cost-recording route to the Costs page (#20922)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - When an agent is denied a board-only action, the denial names the
board page where a person can do it, and agents relay that link
> - Cost recording retry ("Retry cost recording") is board-only and
lives on the run's row on the Costs page
> - The denial for every `/companies/:id/costs` route named the Budgets
page instead
> - So an agent asked to fix a run's missing cost sent the person to
Budgets, where the control does not exist
> - This pull request maps cost routes to the Costs page and names that
page in the retry route's catalog entry
> - The benefit is that the person lands on the control the agent told
them to use
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
In paid chat eval run 43086418488
(`budgets-costs.repair-cost-recording`), the CEO tried `POST
/api/companies/{companyId}/costs/retry-accounting`, got `403
board_access_required` whose remediation said `[Open
budgets](/<prefix>/activity/budgets)`, and told the person to use the
retry on Budgets. The retry control is on the Costs page.
**Expected behavior**
Board denials for cost routes name `[Open
costs](/<prefix>/activity/costs)`. Budget and budget-incident routes
still name Budgets.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. As an agent, call `POST
/api/companies/{companyId}/costs/retry-accounting`.
2. Read the 403 `remediation`.
3. It links `/<prefix>/activity/budgets`, a page with no cost retry
control.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/authz.ts`: `COMPANY_COSTS_PAGE`
(`/<prefix>/activity/costs`); `/companies/:id/costs/*` denials use it.
Budgets and budget incidents keep `COMPANY_BUDGETS_PAGE`.
- `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: the retry route's description says a
board user retries with Retry cost recording on the run's row on the
Costs page.
- `board-access-denial.test.ts`: regression row for the retry route (red
before the change, green after).
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-refusal-finality.test.ts
src/__tests__/cost-data-quality-routes.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` (server): all pass. The
new row fails without the `authz.ts` change.
- End-to-end: the chat eval case `budgets-costs.repair-cost-recording`
grades that the agent's guidance links the Costs page; it will be rerun
after this merges.
## Risks
- Low. Only the link text and target in cost-route denials and one
catalog description change. Agents that previously relayed Budgets now
relay Costs.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5.2
|
a56b648602 |
fix(upgrade-readiness): report restartable runs and a handoff verdict that blocks only on lost work (#20910)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A deployer can replace the server while agent runs continue. Before the swap, it reads the upgrade-readiness report of the old server > - The version 1 report is ready only when every active run is adoptable and no wake admission is in flight > - On a busy instance, new runs arrive each minute. Some runs are always in preparation, so the report is almost never ready and the instance does not upgrade > - A run in preparation has done no agent work. Restart recovery starts it again. A swap loses nothing > - This pull request adds a `handoff` object to the report. It separates recoverable, restartable and blocking runs > - The benefit is that a deployer can wait only for work that a swap would lose ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20852 (reference only; this change does not depend on it and does not use its version 2 shape). **What happened?** A busy instance had 16 running runs and 1 queued run. Fourteen had a live process. Two or three native runs had not launched a process yet. One was a legacy run. `upgradeReadiness.ready` needs `blockingRuns === 0 && pendingWakes === 0` in one probe. That state almost never occurs, so the deployer never swaps the server. **Expected behavior** The report tells the deployer which runs a swap would lose. Runs that only wait for a launch, and wake admissions in flight, do not block a graceful replacement. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Keep a steady flow of new runs on an instance. 2. Read `GET /api/instance/task-drain?upgradeReadiness=1` repeatedly. 3. See `ready: false` each time, because one or more runs are in preparation or a wake admission is in flight. ## What Changed - `summarizeUpgradeReadiness` returns an additive `handoff` object: `version`, `ready`, `recoverableRuns`, `restartableRuns`, `blockingRuns`, `pendingWakes`, `unsavedWakes`. - `handoff.ready` is true when the instance is not draining, the census is complete, and `handoff.blockingRuns` and `handoff.unsavedWakes` are 0. Saved pending wakes do not change it. - The wake queue tracks each public wake admission until its wake request and queued run commit. `unsavedWakes` is the count of admissions before that commit. Without a valid count, every pending wake is unsaved. - The top-level version 1 fields keep their values and meaning. `ready` and `blockingRuns` are unchanged, so a current consumer sees no looser verdict. - The census query marks a run `restartable` only with all of these: `paperclip_runner` adapter; no process identity; no provider session before or after; no checkpoint header; no dispatched runner task; no execution-start event. It must also be a native run in the `observed` phase with preparation fencing and an unsettled finalization record, or a legacy run in the `preparing` stage under a recorded controller. - All other runs without adoption evidence stay blocking. This includes local adapters, legacy runs with a child process, follow-up runs that carry a provider session, and runs the census could not observe. - The OpenAPI description and `doc/testing-native-remote-continuity.md` describe the new fields and their limits. Why these classes are correct on master: - Restartable native runs: restart recovery claims a run with no checkpoint and no provider evidence as `bootstrap_incomplete` and executes the same run again (`native-restart-recovery.ts` `classifyNativeRunnerRecoveryEvidence`; `heartbeat/recovery.ts` executes each claim). A graceful shutdown suspends the run and notifies recovery. Existing tests: "recovers an unclaimed remote startup once without requiring a provider checkpoint" and "recovers an unclaimed remote startup that a graceful shutdown suspended during preparation". - Restartable legacy runs: process-loss recovery retries a `preparing` run with `providerWorkStarted: false`. Existing test: "continues a chain whose preparations were killed twice and then interrupted again, without a Retry". - Pending wakes: the count is wake admissions in flight in the process, not queue rows. A wake commits its wake request and its queued run in one transaction. After the commit, the next server dispatches the queued run at startup, so a saved wake does not block. Before the commit, nothing is saved. Shutdown waits at most 30 seconds and then exits, so an unsaved wake can be lost and blocks. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/heartbeat/upgrade-readiness.test.ts src/services/heartbeat/upgrade-readiness-post-result.test.ts`: 28 passed. - Red/green: before the implementation, the 7 new tests failed (6 summary tests, 1 PostgreSQL census test). After it, all pass. - Red/green for unsaved wakes: a test holds the agent row lock while a wake admission waits. Without the fix, `handoff.ready` was true with no saved wake. With the fix, it is false with `unsavedWakes: 1`, and the wake saves after the lock releases. - New cases: only recoverable runs; recoverable plus unlaunched runs plus pending wakes (`handoff.ready` true, top-level `ready` false and `blockingRuns` unchanged); a started run without recovery evidence; an unobserved execution; draining; truncated census. - The PostgreSQL test changes one fact at a time (process identity, provider session, phase, fencing, checkpoint, adapter, each execution-start event) and expects the run to become blocking. - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts`: 157 passed (187 with the two readiness files). - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit`: passed. - `pnpm verify` exited 2 (a documentation path is a global CI input). Required CI supplies the broad coverage. - Not run: a live server replacement. The classification relies on the existing recovery tests named above. ## Risks - Low risk for current consumers. The change is additive and the version 1 fields are unchanged. - `handoff.ready` is an observation at one instant. A wake admission that starts after the probe is unsaved until it commits. - Restart recovery applies its own proofs and a bounded attempt budget before it starts a restartable run again. The report is an observation, not a guarantee for each run. - The probe adds one indexed `not exists` on run events per running row, inside the existing two-second statement timeout. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Fable 5.2 (`claude-fable-5-2`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.2 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky Leach
|
25f0957c24 |
Select the AI Connection sign-in computer automatically (#20906)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their AI Connections. > - Codex and Claude subscription sign-in can run on a company agent computer. > - Core stores the credential and uses connection permissions to control access. > - The Connections page asks the user to choose a computer just to host sign-in. > - This change lets Core choose an eligible computer when sign-in starts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20410 and #20417. **What existing behavior does this improve?** OpenAI and Anthropic subscription sign-in from Connections with an agent computer as the sign-in environment. **Current behavior** The user must choose a sign-in computer before the provider flow can start. **Proposed behavior** Start sign-in from the provider form. Core chooses a computer in the company and sign-in environment. The session stays bound to that computer and reports when no eligible computer is available. **Reason and benefit** The saved credential and its permissions are independent of the computer that hosts sign-in, so users can proceed without picking an agent. ## What Changed - Select an eligible computer when a managed Codex or Claude login starts without an explicit target. Prefer ready computers and skip active login leases. - Remove the picker and let the browser resume the existing session by environment and connection intent. Continue to honor explicit agent targets in agent settings. Remove the unused picker fallback from the legacy form. - Update the AI Connections guide, the plugin environment contract, and the OpenAPI descriptions. ## Verification - Passed server and UI typechecks. - Passed 317 tests across the login environment, setup-token route, device-login service, and two UI suites. The Postgres test covers eligibility, inherited environments, explicit targeting, occupied computers, and the no-computer response. - Passed 45 OpenAPI route tests. - Reran the affected UI suites on the final revision. All 230 tests passed. - UI tests cover starting from the provider form and resuming both provider flows with a server-selected target. - [CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/43086849302) and [Greptile 5/5](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20906#issuecomment-6805135968) passed on the final commit. - Local verification used test transports. Live provider sign-in remains to be checked in a Cloud composition that contains this change. ## Risks - Two sign-ins that select a computer before either lease is recorded can contend for the same computer. The existing provider admission guard handles the conflict. A retry can select another computer once the lease is visible. - The computer selection uses existing lifecycle and lease data. Plugin admission still validates the live computer. - No schema migration or plugin protocol change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with shell execution and local test tooling. ## 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 |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
6dc36700b1 |
fix(costs): mark unpriced usage in the agent, model and project cost reports (#20889)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Cost reports show what agents and projects spent
> - A run can have usage with no known price; Paperclip saves it with
costStatus "unpriced" and costCents 0
> - The summary and the provider, biller and user reports count those
events, but the agent, agent-model and project reports did not
> - An agent that read the by-agent-model report saw a native run at
costCents 0 and told the person it cost $0.00
> - This pull request adds unpricedEventCount to those three reports and
tells agents what it means
> - The benefit is that missing charges are reported as unpriced, not as
free
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
In the chat eval budgets-costs.spend-breakdown, the person asked "How
much did Launch cost this week, broken down by agent?". The week
included a real native run whose usage had no known price (data-quality
reason missing_price). The agent read /costs/by-agent-model and
/costs/by-project. Both returned costCents 0 for that usage and no
unpriced count. The reply showed "1 native run ($0.00)" and gave the
total as complete.
**Expected behavior**
The reports say which rows include unpriced usage. The agent says that
usage is unpriced, marks the total incomplete, and links the record.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Record one priced and one unpriced metered cost event for an agent in
a project.
2. Call GET /api/companies/{companyId}/costs/by-agent, /by-agent-model
and /by-project.
3. See costCents counts only the priced event, and no field shows the
unpriced event.
## What Changed
- `costService.byAgent`, `byAgentModel` and `byProject` return
`unpricedEventCount` (same filter as the summary: unpriced and not
subscription_included).
- Shared types `CostByAgent`, `CostByAgentModel` and `CostByProject` add
`unpricedEventCount`.
- The OpenAPI catalog entries for the cost reports that count unpriced
usage now say that costCents counts priced usage only, that unpriced
usage must be reported as unpriced (never $0.00), and that
/costs/data-quality lists those runs.
- Tests: embedded-Postgres service test (red on master, green here) and
an OpenAPI description test. A UI test fixture adds the new field.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` (19 passed). The
new test fails with the master service.
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` (2146 passed).
- `tsc --noEmit` for packages/shared and server.
## Risks
- Low risk. One added aggregate column per report and an added response
field. The UI does not read it yet.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
6154b9485e |
fix(authz): name the Experimental settings page when an agent is denied an instance experiment (#20894)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - People ask chat agents to turn on instance experiments, such as
Cases
> - Agents cannot read or change experimental instance settings, which
is correct
> - The denial they get names no page, so the agent cannot tell the
person where to act
> - The case API gate ("Cases are disabled") also names no page
> - This pull request makes both denials, and the API catalog entry,
name the Experimental settings page
> - The benefit is that the agent replies with a usable link instead of
a vague "ask an admin"
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
An agent that asks for `GET` or `PATCH
/api/instance/settings/experimental` gets the generic board-only denial.
That denial says "Link a page only if you already know its route; do not
search for one." The case API, while Cases is off, returns only "Cases
are disabled". The agent has no route to give the person.
**Expected behavior**
The denial is final and names the page where an instance admin turns the
feature on: `[Open Experimental
settings](/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/experimental)`. If the
operator hides that page, the denial does not link it.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Use an agent API key.
2. Send `PATCH /api/instance/settings/experimental` with
`{"enableCases": true}`.
3. See a 403 with a remediation that names no page.
4. With Cases off, send `GET /api/companies/<id>/cases` with the agent
key.
5. See a 403 "Cases are disabled" with no remediation.
Refs the chat eval `instance-operations.instance-settings` (retargeted
from the removed Agent Chat toggle to Cases).
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/authz.ts`: the board-only denial map links
Experimental settings for `/instance/settings/experimental`. It does not
link it when `instance.experimental` is hidden.
- `server/src/routes/cases.ts`: the Cases gate keeps the "Cases are
disabled" message. It adds `code: cases_disabled` and a final
remediation that names the same page (same hidden-page guard).
- `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: the GET and PATCH catalog entries for
experimental settings name the page. They say that agent credentials
cannot read or change these settings. They give Cases (`enableCases`) as
an example.
- Regression tests in `board-access-denial.test.ts`,
`cases-routes.test.ts` and `openapi-routes.test.ts`.
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts`: 107 passed.
- Red check: with the three source files reverted, 4 new assertions fail
(GET and PATCH denial links, the catalog entry, the Cases gate).
- `src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` and
`src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts`: pass.
## Risks
- Low risk. Only error bodies and catalog text change. Status codes and
the "Cases are disabled" message stay the same.
- The catalog text is static, so it names the page even when an operator
hides it. The denials check the hidden setting.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
c02de922af |
fix(chat): deliver the person's time zone to chat agents (#20898)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People talk to agents in chat, and agents create routines and other scheduled work from that chat > - Paperclip does not record the person's time zone, so a chat agent cannot read "every weekday at nine" or "today" in the person's zone > - The agent then saves schedules in UTC, and the person gets the work at the wrong hour > - This pull request saves the browser time zone with the person's personal preferences and gives it to chat agents in the task prompt > - The benefit is that schedules and dates from chat match the person's local time ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** A person in America/Chicago wrote in chat: "Every weekday at nine in the morning, summarize Launch for me." The agent saved the routine schedule `0 9 * * 1-5` with the UTC time zone. It replied that it used UTC because the person's time zone is not recorded. **Expected behavior** The agent knows the person's time zone. It saves one enabled `0 9 * * 1-5` schedule with the time zone America/Chicago. Its reply names the zone. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open the board in a browser with the time zone America/Chicago. 2. Open a chat with an agent. 3. Send "Every weekday at nine in the morning, summarize Launch for me." 4. Look at the routine trigger that the agent creates. Its time zone is UTC. ## What Changed - Database: add the nullable `time_zone` column to `user_workspace_preferences` (migration `0468`). This is an instance-wide personal preference by user, as AGENTS.md section 5 permits. - Shared: `WorkspacePreference` has `timeZone`. `updateWorkspacePreferenceSchema` accepts an optional IANA `timeZone` (max 64 characters, checked with `Intl.DateTimeFormat`). `coordinatorWorkspaceEnabled` is now optional. The request must contain at least one field. - Server: the preference service returns `timeZone` and updates only the fields in the request. The activity log entry stays the same. The OpenAPI entry uses the shared schema. - UI: a new `useBrowserTimeZoneSync` hook in `Layout` saves the browser time zone one time when it is different from the saved zone. It is silent and best-effort. It uses the selected company as the audit context. - Prompt: for a conversation (any adapter), the task context reads the chat owner's saved zone. Recovery keeps the zone that the first turn admitted. The chat block adds one line only when the zone is known: `The person's time zone is America/Chicago (from their browser). Read times and dates they give, such as "nine in the morning" or "today", in that zone, and save schedules such as routine triggers with that timezone; say the zone when you report a schedule.` ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/workspace-preferences.test.ts src/__tests__/workspace-preferences-routes.test.ts src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-task-context.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/hooks/useBrowserTimeZoneSync.test.tsx src/hooks/useCoordinatorWorkspaceEnabled.test.tsx src/components/Layout.test.tsx` - Red/green: without the task-context and task-markdown changes, the two new prompt tests fail. With the changes, they pass. - `pnpm check:token-gates` is clean. `tsc --noEmit` passes for `packages/shared` and `packages/db`. - Manual: open the board in a browser with a non-UTC zone. Then ask a chat agent to create a weekday routine at nine in the morning. The trigger uses the browser zone. ## Risks - Low risk. The migration adds one nullable column. - The PUT body is now more flexible: `coordinatorWorkspaceEnabled` is optional. An empty body still gets a 400 response. - The prompt grows by one line only for conversations with a known zone. - The saved zone changes when the person uses a browser in a different zone. The latest browser wins. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
353945c86d |
fix(tool-gateway): let agents create gateway tokens without receiving the value (#20613)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Tool gateways let external MCP clients use a company's tools with a
gateway client token
> - Since delegated connection management (#17737), an agent can create
and revoke gateway client tokens for its responsible person
> - #20581 stopped agents from getting the one-time token value, but it
did this by making token creation person-only
> - The product decision is that agents keep their delegated authority
to create and revoke tokens
> - This pull request restores agent token creation, but the agent never
receives the token value: the person reveals the value once on the
gateway's Tokens page
> - The benefit is that an agent can do the rotation work for the
person, and the secret still never enters chat, run events, logs or tool
output
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #17737
Refs #20581
**What happened**
After #20581, `POST /api/tool-gateway/gateways/{gatewayId}/tokens`
returns 403 `gateway_token_requires_person` to every agent caller.
Agents lost the delegated authority to create gateway client tokens that
#17737 gave them. Before #20581, an agent that created a token received
the plaintext value in its tool result and could repeat it in chat.
**Expected behavior**
An agent with delegated connection management can create and revoke
gateway client tokens. The agent never receives a token value. The
responsible person gets the value once, on the gateway's Tokens page.
Person callers keep today's behavior.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Give an agent delegated connection management for a responsible
person with `tools:admin`.
2. As the agent, call `POST
/api/tool-gateway/gateways/{gatewayId}/tokens` (for example through
`call_api`).
3. See 403 `gateway_token_requires_person`.
## What Changed
- Agent create: `POST /api/tool-gateway/gateways/:gatewayId/tokens` from
an agent with delegated authority returns 201 with token metadata only
(`id`, `tokenPrefix`, `expiresAt`, `pendingReveal: true`), plus
`tokensPath`, a `reveal_credential` `requiredUserAction` for the
responsible person, and a `nextStep` instruction. The saved row has no
usable value: its stored hash is of a value that is generated and then
discarded. Gateway authentication also rejects `pendingReveal` rows.
- Person reveal: new person-only `POST
/api/tool-gateway/gateway-tokens/:tokenId/reveal`. It generates the
value, stores its hash, clears `pendingReveal` and returns the value
once. A conditional update makes a second or concurrent reveal return
409. Only the token's responsible person can reveal it (403
`gateway_token_reveal_requires_responsible_person`). Agent callers get
403 `gateway_token_requires_person`. A token revoked before reveal
cannot be revealed.
- Why a reveal that generates the value: no stored plaintext existed to
reveal, and storing one (even encrypted) for later display adds a secret
at rest. Generating the value at reveal time keeps the existing one-time
display and stores only a hash.
- Schema: `tool_mcp_gateway_tokens.pending_reveal boolean not null
default false` (migration `0460_gateway_token_pending_reveal`). Shared
`ToolMcpGatewayToken.pendingReveal`, and `ConnectionRequiredUserAction`
gets `reveal_credential` / `gateway_token`.
- UI: the Tokens page shows a "Waiting for you to reveal" section for
pending tokens with a "Reveal token" button. The value appears in the
existing "New token — copy now" one-time block. Pending tokens show the
status "Not revealed".
- Agent gateway create: the 201 for agent callers also includes
`gatewayPath`, `tokensPath` and a `nextStep` that tells the agent to
link the saved gateway.
- The agent create-token `nextStep` and the catalog say not to revoke
the old token in the same turn: its client keeps working on it until the
person installs the new value.
- The reveal update and its `tool_gateway.token_revealed` activity entry
commit in one transaction. The Tokens page offers Reveal only for tokens
that act for the signed-in person.
- API reference: new `docs/api/tool-gateway-tokens.md` (create, reveal,
revoke) in the docs nav.
- Revoke stays allowed for agents with delegated authority (unchanged
route).
- API catalog: create-gateway, create-token, reveal and revoke
descriptions now say who acts, that agents never receive values, the
page paths, and that the old token is revoked only after the client
works with the new one.
- Agent access map: create-token policy note and a new reveal entry.
- Evals `gateways-profiles.create-gateway` and
`gateways-profiles.rotate-token`:
- Remove the keyword grader (`human|operator|admin|manage`) and the
handoff text checks. Grade saved state, rendered links and secret
absence. A plain reply or a question card is accepted.
- Remove the setup probes that called the create routes as the agent.
Under delegated authority, those probes created a real gateway
("Forbidden agent gateway"), which failed create-gateway before the
agent ran.
- create-gateway: exactly one gateway for the intended profile and
company, created by the agent (or by the person after a handoff); the
person opens it from a rendered link; attribution matches the creator;
any agent-created token is still pending reveal; no token value in chat,
cards or run events.
- rotate-token: after the agent's turn, both setup tokens still work and
any replacement the agent created is pending the person's reveal; the
person follows the rendered Tokens page link and reveals (or issues) the
value in a private browser; the new value works before the old token is
revoked; the unrelated client keeps access; no token value appears
anywhere, including a regex scan for any full `pcgw_<id>.<secret>`
value.
- The changed scenario context and outcomes are recorded in
`chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.json` `changedFields` and pinned in
the manifest test. The inventory digest, descriptors (`oracleVersion`
v2, `sourceFiles`) and SDK public input pins are updated. The unused
`external-gateway-handoff.ts` module is removed.
- Fixture realism: the create-gateway profile now allows a real read
tool (an empty profile made the agent ask which apps to add instead of
finishing), and the rotation tokens get a neutral owner note instead of
"Disposable rotation fixture" (the agent read that note as an eval
hint).
- Shared private-browser helpers (`external-private-browser.ts`,
`external-private-browser-worker.ts`) get one optional `pendingTokenId`
input and one `revealedPending` receipt field.
## Verification
- Red: on `master` route code, the new integration tests `lets agents
create and revoke gateway client tokens without ever receiving a token
value` and `reveals an agent-created gateway token value only to its
responsible person` fail (403 `gateway_token_requires_person`).
- Green: `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/connection-management.integration.test.ts -t gateway` (25
passed). The test checks that the agent `call_api` result has no `token`
field and no token-shaped value, that the agent cannot reveal, that the
person reveals once (second reveal 409) and the value authenticates,
that agent revoke works and stops the value, that a token revoked before
reveal never gets a value, and that person create still returns the
value.
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` (2247 passed).
- `cd ui && npx vitest run
src/pages/apps/gateways/panels/TokensPanel.test.tsx
src/pages/apps/gateways/gateway-helpers.test.ts` (16 passed); `pnpm
check:token-gates` clean.
- Eval graders and catalog: `pnpm exec vitest run --config
tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts` on the gateway oracle tests,
`external.test.ts`, catalog consistency/contract, TestOps
export/retained, phase/clock callers and SDK input/type tests (all
pass); `node --test` on the TestOps manifest, adapter, contract,
streaming and reconcile tests (all pass); `node
tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`
(unchanged).
- `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes. `tsc --noEmit` for `server`,
`ui` and `tests/runner-e2e`: no errors in changed files.
- Paid end-to-end run of both eval cases, run
[42872921890](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42872921890)
on
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
89ec4e7614 |
feat(links): add cached GitHub pull request previews (#20593)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task conversations contain links to pull requests and other work. > - A URL alone cannot tell the operator whether a PR is open, merged, or blocked by conflicts. > - Fetching every link at render time wastes API calls and can expose private data through a shared cache. > - This pull request adds a demand-driven links service and a GitHub PR adapter. > - Each viewer and company has a separate cache. Repeated links share one request and result. > - Operators get context when they hover or focus a link. Normal links stay useful when a provider is unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Task Markdown links, shared link metadata, and the server GitHub API boundary. **Problem or motivation** PR links have compact labels and neutral icons. They do not provide a rich hover card or a common status source across repeated mentions. A background resolver cannot borrow a person's GitHub connection because it has no viewer identity. **Proposed solution** Recognize supported links locally. Request metadata after a delayed hover or keyboard focus. Show a card at the first line of the link, aligned with its icon. Share the result across all mentions in the current viewer and company. Keep the exact original navigation URL. The first adapter supports GitHub pull requests. Open is green, merged is purple, and merge conflicts are orange. Draft, closed, unknown, loading and unavailable states remain quiet. **Alternatives considered** Eager page scans would spend API quota on links the operator does not inspect. Company-wide caching of personal GitHub results would cross the credential boundary. This change uses neither approach. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md was checked. This extends existing task links and the GitHub resolver. It adds no deployment adapter or new background worker. Searches of open and closed PRs for link previews and PR hover cards found no matching implementation. ## What Changed - Add host-owned link recognition and a normalized preview contract. The service selects an adapter by provider. - Add a board-only company read endpoint. It checks company access before cache reads and sends a private, no-store response. - Use the current viewer's eligible GitHub connection. A configured connection that cannot supply credentials fails closed. With no managed connection, reuse existing company credentials or public access. Instance credentials retain the public-repository check. - Reuse the GitHub external-object resolver for API transport and response parsing. Add title and mergeability to its normalized snapshot without changing its existing state contract. - Coalesce requests by company, viewer and canonical PR URL. Bound cached entries and concurrent work. Cache success for one minute and failures for a short period or the provider retry window. - Add an abortable request deadline. Timed-out work stays in the concurrency budget until it settles. No periodic worker or idle polling is added. - Add a shared browser query and anchored preview card. Repeated Markdown links observe the same result. There are no automatic retries, window-focus refreshes, toasts or connection prompts. - Add ten production-component Storybook examples and real pointer/keyboard browser checks. Document the API and verification route. ## Verification - Linux source checkout: 233 focused tests passed in nine suites. They cover recognition, fixed API destinations, provider states, access failures, credential selection, viewer/company isolation, request coalescing, expiry, cache bounds, concurrency bounds and mounted OpenAPI coverage. - A live public GitHub smoke returned this PR's correct title and open state. Two equivalent URLs shared one real network request. Personal connection access was not part of that smoke. - A controlled HTTP server stalls a real response body. The test proves cancellation while another lookup completes. - UI typecheck and the server layered typecheck passed. The UI production build passed. - Token gates and query policy gates passed. All 30 map/catalog support checks passed. The three new server test files also passed a focused TypeScript check. - All 27 focused browser checks passed on the reviewed source tree. They cover light/dark themes, narrow layouts, open/merged/conflict/draft/closed/loading/unavailable/failed states, fixed positioning during pointer movement, exact navigation and keyboard access. A real browser HTTP interception counts one deferred lookup for two equivalent PR links. - The first browser attempt lacked Chromium. A later combined build/test attempt exhausted the sandbox's 8 GiB memory limit and killed Storybook. Those attempts supply no pass evidence. Chromium is installed, and the final browser checks run with the build stopped. One initial Storybook dependency reload interrupted a streaming check. All eight existing inline-link cases passed on the warmed server, followed by a complete 27-case pass. - Synthetic Storybook pointer events did not exercise the native hover boundary. The assertions now run through real Playwright pointer and keyboard actions. The fixture stories retain the production components. - Review fixes preserve the Draft label when GitHub reports both draft and conflicts. They also preserve neutral link colors in dark mode. The 25 affected service checks pass, including the added combined-state regression. Browser checks compare unknown, draft and closed links with the muted theme color. - The first CI policy run rejected a literal retry opt-out. The code now uses the existing explicit zero-retry helper. A new test-spy type error was also corrected. These failures are fixed; their earlier runs remain failed. - `pnpm verify --explain` returned exit 2 because the browser test path selects broad CI. No full local suite is claimed. The final CI run supplies that coverage. - The previous head `437913c797963aa113bb82e2ae8b836969317ef9` passed CI and received a 5/5 Greptile score. All four review threads are resolved. Master then advanced. The current head `ae2a1c2adbd61a621cca9bdd160561952613df6e` resolves the source-manifest conflict against master `9b21dcbdda01296349f3cfe0a3a6891e79df6130`. Fresh CI and review are running. - The previous CI run found a lost class on decorated PR links and a stale SDK source manifest. Both are fixed. The existing CommentThread integration test and 26 focused link service tests pass. All 45 SDK source/privacy tests pass. All eight source-manifest helper tests pass. The manifest helper changed only source identities and added the two new shared files. Runtime, compiler, parser and library pins stay unchanged. - A later review found that expired timeouts could reuse a settled promise. The service now removes settled requests from its shared-request map and counts unfinished provider work separately. The new regression failed before the fix and passes after it. The concurrency-bound and real stalled-HTTP tests also pass. - UI typecheck and token gates pass after these fixes. The browser rerun needed Chromium in the new session. That first attempt did not exercise the UI. The complete 27-case browser rerun passed before the master merge with retries disabled. All 27 browser cases also passed on the merge revision with retries disabled. - After the master merge, all 84 focused link, OpenAPI and integration tests pass. All 55 SDK source/privacy/manifest tests pass. UI typecheck and token gates pass again. The source manifest retains master's reviewed runtime pins and includes both sets of source changes. GitHub confirms the PR can merge cleanly. The preflight helper rebuilt the shared package and plugin SDK; Cargo is unavailable locally. Final CI supplies Rust coverage. - The latest master update changed the reviewed report-lock policy but left the SDK lock hash at its previous value. The SDK source/evidence checks reproduced the mismatch. This change sets only the SDK lock hash to the authenticated output of the existing master policy and patch. Compiler, parser and Zod pins stay unchanged. All 56 SDK source/evidence/manifest tests now pass. All 84 focused link/API/integration tests, UI typecheck and token gates also pass on the updated source. ## Risks - This cache is process-local. Separate server replicas can make separate GitHub requests. - A cached result can remain visible for its short lifetime after GitHub changes. A later hover refreshes expired data. - GitHub can report unknown mergeability. The UI shows conflicts only when GitHub explicitly reports them. - Personal preview data stays in viewer/company caches. It is not written to company external-object records or persisted browser query storage. - Stories simulate the API. They do not prove a live GitHub login or private-repository access. - No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The runtime does not expose the exact serving model ID or context-window limit. Used reasoning, repository inspection, source editing, shell execution and browser tools. No subagents were used. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
12f70d0d4c |
Keep Slack form custody and receipt transfer durable (#19825)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work for AI-agent companies. > - Chat connections deliver provider messages and user answers. > - Slack requires a response within its original three-second deadline. > - Forms and their delivery receipts must survive retries and tenant restarts. > - This change uses the existing connector queue and durable form owners. > - Current authorization, exact receipt checks and normal ACK rules stay in force. > - The tenant can settle useful work while keeping the connection enabled. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19019 and #19348. Companion Cloud PR: paperclipai/paperclip-cloud#1250. ## What Changed - Preserve form grants, sessions, encrypted evidence, terminal receipts and company-authorized Retry. - Check initial form enrollment before the provider send. Keep a typed preparation wait only while an exact current enrollment obligation exists. - Refund the attempt only when the claimed attempt and credential lease still match and provider invocation has not started. Possible or accepted sends retain uncertain-delivery custody. An ordinary error with the same text still uses the normal five-attempt limit. - Notify the existing publication worker when normal enrollment commits. Reconstruct pending work from durable state after a lost reply or owner restart. - Page settled history before proving idle safety. Keep unfinished, malformed and foreign receipts visible beyond the first 1,000 rows. - Keep Slack callback, answer, receipt and ACK rules in their provider owners. Support body-bound Cloud idle capabilities when a complete catalog exceeds the header budget. - Add focused regression coverage, an enabled quiet/reactivation recipe and explicit fixture port checks. - Keep SDK evidence tests tied to a normally built reviewed reference, with a separate strict refusal for actual unreviewed CI outputs. ## Verification App head: `6284d6881b5dc38a9ee149bcbde35e69a67dd8ca`, including actual master `dff8bed007e01c32f3826144b893ec80603d1335`. Companion Cloud head: `f83b38187dc7e6b2e219fe865dc16d268cc66fdb`, including actual Cloud master `b1dcc3421a91efffee631a61536cf48f357c22fc`. Cloud #1250 is merged at `1d07d81f23d4627ab7b6dcf49176b4128a2f8f9b` after exact-head passing checks and complete Greptile 5/5. Current exact-head CI typecheck, build, tests and aggregate verification are green; the complete edited Greptile review is 5/5 and all 13 review threads and nested comment pages are resolved. - Both latest enrollment findings were reproduced against the preceding product. The pure readiness control returned no wait for the first enrollment. The real-PostgreSQL control observed a provider call while that enrollment was still staged. - The repaired source passes three whole files: 21 readiness controls, 80 real-PostgreSQL milestone controls and 37 tenant-actor middleware controls. All 138 pass with zero excluded or TODO cases. The SQL case reconstructs the worker through seven waits, preserves the attempt budget, recovers a controlled lost enrollment reply, and commits one provider-port call and one exact grant. Replaying the selected attempt does not duplicate them. Authorization, SDK and enrollment-response ports are controlled in that SQL case. - The same files cover ordinary five-attempt exhaustion, accepted and possible sends, stale ownership, malformed bindings, attention states and current actor restrictions. One synthetic mismatched-binding parameter uses generation 2 against current generation 1; it is not evidence for an older-generation control. - The normal server-package typecheck passes at the measured source. It runs the normal Runner TypeScript, protocol, SDK and declaration prerequisites and all seven main App programs. The separate declaration configuration is also recorded. A worker union-narrowing error was found, fixed with an explicit callable/null branch, and verified by that normal compiler. No cast or test relaxation was used. - The normal merge of current master preserves all 78 owned paths and 15,783 unrelated master entries and modes. The three measured test files and their changed feature paths are unchanged. New upstream DB code adds only the normal nonunique concurrent native-session index and its migration classification. Shared and adapter-utils changes alter unrelated prompt or denial wording. The 138-case proof carries for those unchanged behaviors; it is not reported as a rerun after the merge. The normal Shared/SDK ensure, DB build, adapter-utils build and complete server-package check also pass at the current merged head. Their fresh inventory contains 8,143 outputs; canonical SQL and journal copies match. This build did not apply the new index migration. - Earlier real-PostgreSQL retained-history coverage reproduced the missing proof with 1,005 settled rows. Its repair retains the existing two-second/64-query inspection budget, current endpoint bound and exact owner snapshot. The 46 source-bound controls cover unfinished and invalid tails, exact cross-page action references, Retry, rollback and lost receipt responses. - Earlier enabled quiet/reactivation coverage produced ordinary useful work, kept configuration enabled, accepted fresh signed work plus a duplicate, and produced exactly one second useful reply. Its two App-worker windows lasted at least 30 seconds with zero measured PG writes, connection or outbound activity after settlement. That evidence stays tied to its measured revision. A missing worker EXIT marker limits that earlier proof; parent evidence does not replace it. - Earlier three-second callback, terminal ACK, current-question race and complete body-size controls remain source-bound. The 500-owner/1,000-binding body measured 313,875 bytes with a 618-byte JWT; signature tampering failed closed. - Final managed-provider acceptance now passes all five fresh Node boots: A/A, A/AB, B/A rejection, B/AB recovery, B/B final. Two independently configured, challenged, verified, linked and enrolled Slack identities exercise ACK and retirement debt separately. Normal provider factory/materialization delivers the configuration through a controlled external stack-provider boundary. The registered opening returns HTTP 200 in 21 ms within the original 3-second deadline. Two answers persist, normal ACK is accepted, exact retirement and lost acceptance/GC replies recover, and the original canonical snapshot remains unchanged without duplicate provider sends or submissions. - The separate complete committed-preflight case passes. A committed `update_attempted` response is lost before SDK entry; normal service-owner reconstruction after the original lease/deadline recovers the same useful update and one answer without a second trigger. This reconstructs service owners within one App process; the separate five fresh Node boots cover process restart and managed signing-key rotation. - Assertion-time PG socket reports balance 15 opens/15 closes across the five boots and 5/5 in preflight, peak 2 and zero live sockets or unexpected attempts. Worker terminal EXIT markers were missing and are not replaced by parent EXIT markers. These are domain/recovery and assertion-time connection proofs, not a new whole-worker terminal quiet measurement. All known owners/groups closed; independent SQL audits were empty; only successful fixture databases were removed. Earlier failed fixture databases/logs remain retained. No product guard, deadline or assertion was weakened. Exact runtime source and normal outputs are unchanged by the three test files in the current follow-up, so these source-bound proofs carry without repeating those journeys. - The preceding App CI ran 11,312 support cases: 11,289 passed, three SDK-evidence cases failed, and 20 external cases skipped. Normal CI dependency setup resolved six stale Slack patch-hash references and produced an unreviewed lock. The public SDK proof correctly refused that lock; the tests incorrectly assumed the CI output was a reviewed reference. The three-file test repair keeps the protected lock policy, source/compiler/parser/Zod pins, scanner and redaction rules unchanged. It builds an owned reviewed reference using the existing normal Shared/SDK producers for the positive seal test, while a separate negative requires actual unreviewed-build privacy refusal and no retained SDK bytes. It does not relabel the CI build as certified or admit a new lock hash. - All four whole SDK support files pass locally: public type 30, evidence 16, public-input synchronizer 8 and lock preparation 10, totaling 64 with zero excluded/TODO cases in 28.73 seconds. The genuine fresh reference build/positive seal and separate invalidated-reference privacy refusal passed within their original 120-second bounds. Original installed dependencies, SDK outputs/cache and runtime source stayed unchanged; normal global setup produced only its own Runner JavaScript outputs. PostgreSQL was denied throughout, all four worker markers were observed, and the owned process group/private test root closed. The local canonical-lock negative mutates only its own reference; fresh remote CI also passes the actual resolved-CI-lock branch: all 16 evidence and 30 public-type tests pass, including the genuine reviewed-reference positive and the strict actual-unreviewed-build refusal. The upstream synchronizer file runs its current 10 cases in CI. - The first complete CI attempt on this head also exposed two separate 30-second timeouts: one real reporter-artifact test and the `agent-test-environment` module-loading hook. Full original logs remain preserved. Their exact test, sanitizer and evidence source blobs are unchanged from the preceding head; inspection found no deterministic setup cause. After the original run finished, one retry of only the failed jobs passed on the same synthetic merge `168851e210671ebe97e7a778e8cf891807e80502`: Runner support reports 11,304 passes and 20 external skips; serialized shard 6 reports all 395 passes, including all 67 route bodies. No source, timeout or assertion changed. This proves recovery; the original causes remain unexplained. - The final pre-merge tree audit uses actual master `17136a6c25ef6cb7c816a29140a4c48c2c75fb31` (refreshed after the earlier `85dec046` audit). The expected normal squash preserves all 81 owned paths and 15,816 unrelated master entries and modes. Only OpenAPI has edits from both sides, and its complete content composition preserves the new project route and token help alongside this PR's API entries. The shared inbound selection changes preserve the same candidate set; new concurrent indexes, Native/workspace behavior and shutdown changes remain upstream behavior. The scoped form proof uses process agents and does not qualify the new Native/sandbox branches. The latest question-schema change still accepts the explicit version-1 payload exercised here. The last master delta also changes managed AI/Native credential refresh and writeback; those branches are outside the measured process-agent form paths. Existing 8,143 local outputs remain tied to their measured revision; no new whole-tree output equality or deployed suspension is claimed. - Reproduce the public path with `doc/testing/slack-cloud-qualification.md`, the companion Cloud checkout, Node 24/22 and fresh owned fixture databases. Aggregate local `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run` and `pnpm build` were not rerun as one command set. Current exact-head required CI and the complete Greptile 5/5 review now pass; the full edited summaries and all paginated threads were read. Local worker quiet does not prove deployed host or Neon suspension. Photon and Discord remain separate work; this PR completes the described Slack slice. ## Risks Use compatible App and Cloud readers before transferring custody. Signatures prove authenticity; current authorization and exact ownership still control execution. Preserve old targets, secrets and terminal facts until their normal owners release them. Keep the managed seal identity stable while custody remains. The required Slack adapter patch remains pinned. Upstream's concurrent index uses the normal top-level migration path. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` implemented and tested the changes. A GPT-6-based Codex managing agent reviewed and integrated them. The host does not expose the managing agent's exact model ID or context-window sizes. The agents used code execution and test tools. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used, its version and tool capabilities - [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 linked public related issues or PRs - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run the local tests listed above and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green for the current head - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings for the current head - [x] I will address all reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
98ce93dd4e |
Choose project storage from compatible environments (#20587)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Projects supply repository files to agent runs through core staging or a storage plugin. > - A storage plugin's default claim silently attached new projects even when their agents used a different environment. > - An environment name or driver type does not establish shared storage access. The existing binding and task-driver contracts do. > - This pull request groups creation choices by that contract and selects storage from the creator's effective environment. > - The benefit is a visible, validated choice and a clear error before an incompatible managed workspace operation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #20459. Related: #20156 covers a separate provider-failure diagnostic. The PR search found no other fix for #20459. ROADMAP.md has no duplicate project-creation change. ## What Changed - Show **Available in** when configured environments require different project storage. Each option names the environments that can use the same storage owner. Hide the selector when all choices are compatible. - Derive compatibility from repository staging and managed binding ownership. Local, SSH, and sandbox environments use core staging. Managed storage requires a registered task driver from the same installed storage plugin. Separate storage plugins remain incompatible. Unknown plugin contracts and the fake sandbox are excluded. - Follow the creating agent's environment, or the person's primary agent, then the instance default and local fallback. Apply managed-only and forced Kubernetes policy. The product has no separate user or company environment-default field today. - Add a company-authorized discovery endpoint and an optional creation `environmentId`. Validate the choice again on save. Store the storage owner without overriding agent run environments. Preserve explicit API storage choices and existing project ownership. - Keep the hidden repository-free private-task project independent of environment availability. Submit the observed storage owner as `expectedStorageProviderPluginId` so a changed contract fails at save without setting a workspace policy. Instance task-isolation defaults stay inherited. - Reject an incompatible managed workspace before a provider operation. Name the storage and selected environment in the error. Add regression tests, API documentation, creation-story fixtures, and minimal corrections to obsolete map text. ## Verification - **102 tests passed across 7 files:** project environment integration, installed storage policy, repository persistence, project environment routes, project creation telemetry routes, OpenAPI, and NewProjectDialog. Run with `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run server/src/__tests__/project-environments.test.ts server/src/__tests__/project-workspace-provider.integration.test.ts server/src/__tests__/project-repositories-persistence.test.ts server/src/__tests__/project-routes-env.test.ts server/src/__tests__/project-goal-telemetry-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/NewProjectDialog.test.tsx --silent`. - The review fixes cover both archived-default private-task cases and changed-storage rejection. With both instance isolation flags enabled, a new core repository project keeps a null policy and resolves to an isolated Git worktree. The complete affected set passes all 102 tests. - The CI query-error policy failure was fixed by using the shared query view. The form and shared query-view suites pass **24 tests**, including cached choices during a transient refetch failure. `node scripts/check-query-error-rendering.mjs --enforce --summary` reports zero findings. - CI exposed stale SDK source hashes and heartbeat fixtures that paired plugin storage with Local. Refreshed exactly four shared-source hashes with the maintained generator (runtime pins unchanged). All **53 SDK privacy/source-proof tests**, including real built SDK output, pass. All **7 corrected managed-storage heartbeat scenarios** pass; the fixtures declare the owning plugin's task environment and substitute transport at the existing execution seam. - Shared and UI TypeScript checks pass. The UI production build passes. `pnpm check:token-gates`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, and diff checks pass. - Tested UI states: compatible choices, incompatible groups, default within a group, manual override, create failure, loading, discovery failure and retry, and an unavailable default. Tests use the production form and existing design tokens. - The integration tests use real isolated PostgreSQL on macOS arm64 with Node 26.12.0. They cover user/agent defaults, storage persistence, policy restrictions, company and authentication denials, and rejection before a provider call. Discovery uses saved configuration and makes no worker or provider requests. - Local verification limits: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` stop in unchanged adapter-utils code because the installed ACPX types lack `inheritProcessEnv`. A direct server check also finds an unchanged AI SDK type-version mismatch. The existing heartbeat test `inherits the instance default environment across companies while preserving explicit agent overrides` times out at line 518 on both this change and unmodified master with the same dependencies. The full `pnpm test:run` attempt passed all six chat shards (1,948 tests), then the Git workspace expiration suite reported 14 failures. I stopped that broad run. Two sampled failures reproduce on unchanged master with the same `unknown_worktree_git_files` refusal; the other expiration failures were not independently compared. A later broad workspace-preparation run also hit workspace validation failures and was stopped; the seven corrected fixture scenarios pass independently. These limits do not establish a full local suite pass. Hosted CI remains required. - Initial missing-package and loopback-denial failures were resolved by repairing isolated dependency links, building the SDK, and running database tests with loopback access. No deployed or live-provider execution is claimed. ## Risks - Creation defaults now follow the effective environment. A plugin's `defaultForProjects` claim alone no longer selects storage. This is the intended behavior change. - Compatibility covers repository project storage. It does not guarantee arbitrary host paths, retained-workspace moves, adapter/image support, credentials, or worker readiness. Matching provider configs cannot prove a cross-plugin storage contract. - A person's primary agent supplies the personal default because there is no separate personal environment setting. An unavailable configured default requires a valid explicit choice or a configuration repair. - No migration runs. Existing projects keep their storage owner. This change does not detach existing managed data or provide a storage migration. - Full local verification has the limits listed above. CI and standard Greptile review are pending. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving snapshot and context-window size were 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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
491dfa1c6d |
fix(tool-gateway): make gateway client token creation person-only (#20581)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Tool gateways let external MCP clients use a company's tools with a gateway client token > - A gateway client token is shown only once, to the caller that creates it > - Since delegated connection management (#17737), an agent can create a gateway client token for its responsible person > - In that case the agent receives the one-time token value, and it can repeat the value in chat > - This pull request makes gateway client token creation person-only > - The benefit is that the one-time token value goes only to the person who creates it in the gateway UI ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17737 **What happened** A person asked the CEO agent in chat to replace the token of a gateway client. The agent called `POST /api/tool-gateway/gateways/{gatewayId}/tokens` under delegated authority. The response gave the agent the new token value, and the agent put the value in its chat reply. **Expected behavior** An agent does not receive a gateway client token value. A person creates the token on the gateway's Tokens page and gives it to the client. The agent tells the person where to do this. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Give an agent delegated connection management for a responsible person with `tools:admin`. 2. As the agent, call `POST /api/tool-gateway/gateways/{gatewayId}/tokens` (for example through `call_api`). 3. See a 201 response that contains the new token value. ## What Changed - `POST /api/tool-gateway/gateways/:gatewayId/tokens` returns 403 `gateway_token_requires_person` to agent callers before it creates a token. The message is final. It gives the Tokens page path (`/<prefix>/apps/gateways/<gatewayId>/tokens`) and tells the agent not to ask for or repeat token values. The response also has `tokensPath`. - Board (person) callers are not changed. - The API catalog entry for the route now says that it is person-only. - Existing agent-issued tokens are not changed. Runtime issuer and responsible-user checks still apply to them. The integration tests now seed such tokens directly to keep that coverage. ## Verification - Red: the new integration test `never returns gateway client token plaintext to agent callers` fails on `master` (the agent `call_api` result is 201 with the token value). - Green: `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/connection-management.integration.test.ts -t gateway` (24 passed). The test also checks that no token row is created for the agent, and that a person session still gets a 201 with the token. - `npx vitest run src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` (152 passed). - `npx vitest run src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` (2090 passed). - `tsc --noEmit -p server`: no errors in the changed files. ## Risks - Behavior change: agents can no longer create gateway client tokens. A workflow that relied on that now gets a 403 that sends the person to the Tokens page. Agents can still revoke tokens and manage gateways under delegated authority. - Low migration risk: no schema change, and existing tokens keep working. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
f4337bb5fb |
test(evals): land the chat catalog eval harness on master (#19614)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The chat-feature evals measure whether agents complete real chat requests through the product > - The chat catalog eval harness and its repairs live on the `chat-eval/master-candidate` branch, not on master > - Today's work made 139 of 242 chat evals pass in verified single-case live runs. Each product fix landed on master as its own pull request > - The eval-side changes (setups, graders, fault seams, evidence capture) still exist only on the candidate > - This pull request lands the harness on master. Master stays the source of truth for product behavior > - The benefit is one tree: evals run against master commits, and product fixes reach the evals as soon as they merge ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19441, Refs #19599, Refs #20270, Refs #20334, Refs #20342, Refs #20344, Refs #20354, Refs #20360, Refs #20373, Refs #20382, Refs #20409 **What existing behavior does this improve?** The chat catalog eval harness and the product it evaluates live on a long-running branch outside master. Eval fixes do not reach master, so master-based eval runs use old setups and graders. **Subsystem affected** `tests/runner-e2e` chat catalog harness, plus a small set of product changes that exist only on the candidate. **Proposed change** Land the harness on master. Every product fix from this eval work already merged to master as its own pull request. Conflicts keep master's product behavior. ## What Changed - Most of the diff (808 of 851 files) is under `tests/runner-e2e/`: chat-catalog domains, scenarios, descriptors, the TestOps manifest, private evidence tooling, and their tests. - Graders now check saved state, setup literals and rendered or clicked links. Many keyword and regex checks on free-form replies are removed. Each changed grader has a bumped `oracleVersion` and calibration tests (a valid reply, a reworded valid reply, and broken variants that must fail). - The shared link helper `hasLink` no longer treats a list link (for example `/COM/issues?view=mine`) as a link to every task without a URL key. - Setup fixes build real state through supported product routes: routine history, agent grants through the board grant route, budget holds with a real cap, and a storage-layer archive fault for `inbox-search.archive-partial-failure`. - Browser boundary journeys (sign-in, chat-disabled, onboarding) now write the standard pass evidence files. - Retargeted cases, approved by the maintainer: `agent-chat.chat-disabled` (Conference Room gate), `agents.restore-instructions` (no saved instruction history), `access.manage-membership` (member permission edits stay board-only). - The private evidence trusted files (`manual-private-handoff.ts`, `manual-private-retention.ts`, `manual-private-report-assets.ts`) are byte-identical to master. - Product files outside `tests/` (43 files, +1,328 −49) carry candidate-only changes that master does not yet have. Most are tests. The main code changes are in `request-human-input.ts`, `heartbeat-run-summary.ts`, `native-completion-feedback.ts`, `native-run-finalizer.ts`, `openapi.ts`, `secrets.ts` and `IssueChatLongThreadPerf.tsx`. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run chat-catalog-domains chat-catalog-contract.test.ts chat-catalog-consistency.test.ts unit-launcher.test.mjs --testTimeout=180000` in `tests/runner-e2e`: 269 files pass, 3,550 tests pass. - `node --test chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.test.mjs`: 10 pass. - `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`: no change. - `tsc` for `server` and `tests/runner-e2e`: clean. - Live single-case verification: 139 of 242 cases passed on paid runs, and a person read the saved evidence for each. These are single-case runs, not one full-cohort run. ## Risks - Large diff. Most of it is test-only, but the 43 non-test files change product code paths. Review those files first. - Some graders are now less strict on reply wording. A person must read replies for meaning on those cases. - 42 cases need disposable outside accounts (Notion, Slack, GitHub, Daytona and others) and stay blocked. `access.invite-teammate` stays failing until local agent isolation lands, because the runner's durable state keeps a live invite token. - The paid workflow compares the trusted private-evidence files with master. They are unchanged, so this risk is low. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution, in Claude Code. Subagents used the same model. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5bad074baa |
feat: add individual agent interaction permissions (#20411)
Add eleven sparse incoming and outgoing restrictions, human CLI/API administration, shared mutation enforcement, and pending-delivery checks. Preserve existing defaults, agent settings, and existing authorization boundaries. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
1c868b86be |
fix(server): tell agents who owns a plugin-managed routine and where it is changed (#20409)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A plugin can create and own routines ("plugin-managed routines").
The routine row shows the plugin in `managedByPlugin`.
> - An agent reads routines through `GET` and `PATCH
/api/routines/{id}`. These API catalog entries had no description.
> - So an agent that read `managedByPlugin` did not know what it meant
or where a person changes the routine.
> - In chat evals, the agent searched for managed-routine routes and
probed plugin files for over four minutes. It did not reply.
> - This pull request adds one shared description to both catalog
entries. It says the plugin owns the definition, links the board's
plugin settings page, and tells the agent not to rewrite, detach or
duplicate the routine.
> - The benefit is that the agent can answer at once and send the person
to the correct page.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. This is a bug report.
**What happened**
A person asked the CEO agent in chat to rewrite a routine that a plugin
manages. The agent read the routine and saw `managedByPlugin`. No tool
result or catalog entry told it what that field means. The agent
searched the API catalog ("plugin managed routine", "managedByPlugin",
"detach plugin managed routine"), tried to read plugin UI files, and
listed agents. After more than four minutes it had not replied, and the
chat timed out. This happened in two separate runs.
**Expected behavior**
The agent replies promptly. It says that the plugin owns the routine,
does not rewrite or copy it, and links the plugin settings page where a
board user changes what the plugin exposes.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Install a plugin that declares a managed routine (`routines.managed`
capability, top-level `routines[]`).
2. Open a chat with the CEO and select the routine.
3. Ask: "Rewrite this plugin's daily maintenance routine."
4. Look at the agent's `search_api` results for `GET /api/routines/{id}`
and `PATCH /api/routines/{id}`. They have no description.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: add a shared
`PLUGIN_MANAGED_ROUTINE_GUIDANCE` description to `GET
/api/routines/{id}` and `PATCH /api/routines/{id}`. It names
`managedByPlugin`, links `[plugin
settings](/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/plugins/<pluginId>)`, and
tells agents to reply with that link instead of rewriting, detaching or
duplicating the routine. The `PATCH` entry also states the existing
agent rule (own routines only, no reassignment).
- `server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routine-guidance.test.ts`: new
regression test. The queries the agent actually used now find these
entries with the guidance, and the linked settings route is mounted in
`ui/src/App.tsx`.
## Verification
- Red then green: `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routine-guidance.test.ts` failed 6/6 before
the change and passes 6/6 after.
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/person-only-page-guidance.test.ts
src/__tests__/case-history-api-discovery.test.ts
src/__tests__/skill-import-discovery.test.ts` passes.
- `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit -p .` passes.
- Live chat eval `routines.plugin-managed-routine` on a branch with this
commit: see the comment on this PR for the run.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change adds documentation text to two API catalog
entries. Routes and permissions do not change.
- The catalog search scores description words, so these two entries can
rank a little higher for queries about plugins or managed resources.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
7e93ccb4b3 |
perf: fetch recent task summaries in one request (#20389)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board UI sidebar shows the person's recent tasks on every page, including the Mine inbox > - The sidebar refreshes those rows through `GET /companies/:id/issues/summaries`, which accepted at most five IDs > - `useRecentTasks` sent the chunks one after another, so a 25-task history cost five sequential requests > - On staging each request took 3–6 s, so the recent-task rows settled about 20 s after load and every request competed with the inbox rows > - This pull request raises the per-request cap to 50 and fetches any remaining chunks in parallel > - The benefit is one summaries request for a typical history instead of a serial chain ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The refresh of the sidebar's recent tasks on page load. **Subsystem affected** Board UI (`ui/src/hooks/useRecentTasks.ts`) and the `/issues/summaries` route bound (`packages/shared`, `server/src/routes/issues.ts`). **Current behavior** A history of N recent tasks sends ceil(N/5) summaries requests in series. Measured on staging on 2026-11-09 for a cold Mine load: five requests of five IDs, started at 1.0 s, 4.3 s, 8.1 s, 12.3 s and 18.4 s, each taking 3.3–6.1 s. **Proposed behavior** Up to 50 recent tasks are one request. Longer histories send their chunks at the same time. **Reason and benefit** The staging server is saturated, so each extra serial round trip delays the sidebar and the inbox rows. One request removes four round trips from a typical load. ## What Changed - `ISSUE_SUMMARIES_MAX_IDS` is now 50 (was 5). The shared validator, the route's 400 message, the service guard and the OpenAPI description use the new bound. - `useRecentTasks` builds all chunks first and fetches them at most three at a time (`RECENT_TASK_SUMMARY_CONCURRENCY`). The recent list has no size cap, so this keeps a long history from becoming a burst. The cache key, omission handling and pruning are unchanged. A failed chunk still fails the batch, so nothing is pruned on a partial failure. - Tests: the route test accepts exactly `MAX` IDs and rejects `MAX + 1`; a hook test checks that at most three chunks are in flight; the API test uses the constant; `useRecentTasks` tests cover a 25-task history in one request and a 103-task history with three chunks in flight together, with and without a failed chunk. - New browser check `tests/perf/collections/recent-task-summaries.spec.ts`: a Mine load with a 12-task history sends summaries requests that each carry all 12 IDs, and the server answers 200 with all 12 tasks. ## Verification - `pnpm verify` (selected Vitest files) passes. - `server`: `npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-summaries-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-display-status.test.ts` passes (embedded PostgreSQL). - `ui`: `npx vitest run src/hooks/useRecentTasks.test.tsx src/api/issue-summaries.test.ts src/components/task-chat/TaskChatBlockerLinks.test.tsx src/components/CoordinatorSidebar.test.tsx src/components/SidebarRecentTasks.test.tsx` passes. - Browser check against a disposable local instance: `PAPERCLIP_COLLECTION_PERF_BASE_URL=http://127.0.0.1:<port> pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/perf/collections/playwright.config.ts recent-task-summaries.spec.ts`. It passes on this branch. With `master`'s hook and constant it fails: three requests of 5, 5 and 2 IDs. ## Risks - Low risk. The route still validates UUIDs, deduplicates, and applies the same read authorization per row. Blocker attention is computed with set-based queries, so 50 IDs is the same number of queries as 5. - During a rolling deploy, a new UI against an old server would get a 400 for a history above five tasks. The server serves the UI bundle, so both change together on a normal deploy. The sidebar keeps its stored snapshot when the refresh fails. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, browser). 1M-token context window. Extended thinking was off. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
380b3d49c0 |
fix(api): make case lookup and audit history discoverable to agents (#20354)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Cases are an experimental saved record with facts, audit history and handoffs, beside the documents on their tasks > - Agents find REST operations with `search_api`, which ranks catalog entries by words in the method, path and summary > - The case read routes had generated summaries such as "GET cases events" and one generic description > - So a chat agent that searched "list company cases" or "case facts history" did not get any case read route on the first page > - In a chat eval, the agent wanted to check the case for "who changed the diagnosis", could not find it, and answered from task document revisions only > - This pull request gives the case read routes real summaries and descriptions, and tells chat agents where a task's case and its fact-change history are > - The benefit is that agents can find and cite a case's audit history when a person asks about it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20265 (case page link guidance for chat agents). **What happened** A person asked a chat agent "Who changed the diagnosis, and what did it say before?" about a case. The agent called `search_api` with "cases list facts history" and "list company cases". The case list, task-to-case lookup and case events routes were not on the first result page. The agent said "Not found", skipped the case audit and answered from the task document revisions only. It did not mention the case fact change or link the case. **Expected behavior** An agent that searches for a company's cases, a task's case or a case's fact-change history finds the matching route on the first page. The catalog says that a `fields_changed` event records who changed the facts and when, but not the previous values. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Cases. 2. Call `searchRunnerApi({ query: "list company cases" })`. 3. See that `GET /api/companies/{companyId}/cases` is not in the five results. The same is true for `GET /api/cases/{id}/events` with "cases list facts history". ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/experimental-api-paths.ts`: add `experimentalApiDocs` with summaries and descriptions for the case list, task-to-case lookup, case read, case events and case document revision routes. - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: use those summaries and descriptions when present. Other experimental routes keep the generated summary. The experimental notice stays in every description. - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: the Cases chat directive now names `GET /api/issues/{issueId}/cases` to find a task's case and `GET /api/cases/{id}/events` for who changed its facts. - `server/src/__tests__/case-history-api-discovery.test.ts`: regression test with the queries from the failed run, and a check on the directive. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/case-history-api-discovery.test.ts` fails on master (2 failures) and passes with this change. - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/skill-import-discovery.test.ts src/__tests__/primary-agent-guidance.test.ts`: 2148 tests pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` reports no errors in the changed files. - A live chat eval (`cases.case-history`) runs on a branch with this commit. ## Risks - Low risk. The change edits catalog text and chat guidance only. Route behavior and authorization do not change. - Search ranking changes for queries that use these words. Case routes now rank higher for case queries. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
1baac27888 |
feat(server): chat bootstrap reads for instant task opens (#20355)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People open tasks from the task list to see the latest messages and to reply to an agent > - Before the task chat shows its first frame, it waits for about ten separate reads: the issue, recent comments, comment input facts, recent activity, recent runs, interactions, attachments, live runs and the active run > - On a busy instance each read waits for the database, and the slowest read decides when the chat appears. A cold open takes 1.5–4 s on staging > - This pull request adds one read that returns all of that data for up to ten tasks, in the same JSON shapes as the existing endpoints, plus a single-task form > - The benefit is that the task list can preload its top tasks, and a cold open needs one round trip instead of about ten. The UI change is in the stacked pull request ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** A task open waits for about ten reads. With the database under load, these reads queue, and a cold open takes seconds. The list cannot preload a task cheaply, because each task costs about ten requests. **Proposed solution** `GET /api/companies/:companyId/issues/chat-bootstrap?ids=` returns the first-frame data for up to 10 tasks. `GET /api/issues/:ref/chat-bootstrap` returns it for one task. Each field equals the matching single endpoint's JSON exactly. **Alternatives considered** - Prefetch the existing endpoints for each list row. For 30 rows this sends about 210 requests to a database that is already the bottleneck. - A new projection with different shapes. This would duplicate client merge logic, and freshness rules could drift. **Roadmap alignment** This is part of the task-loading performance plan in #20276. It follows #20277, #20284 and #20286. ## What Changed - `packages/shared`: - `ISSUE_CHAT_BOOTSTRAP_MAX_IDS` (10). - `issueChatBootstrapQuerySchema`: UUIDs or identifiers, normalized, deduplicated and strict. - The `IssueChatBootstrap` and `IssueChatBootstrapItem` types. - New `server/src/services/issue-chat-bootstrap.ts`: - Resolves the refs inside the company and applies the `issue:read` decision to each task. - Reads the tasks with a concurrency of 2, and returns them in request order. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: - The core issue read and the recent-comments read are now shared helpers, so the bootstrap and the single endpoints use the same code. The core view keeps its Server-Timing header. - Adds the batch route and the single-task route. - Excludes the single-task route from the issue ETag middleware, so a fetch without validators always gets a 200 with `Cache-Control: private, no-store`. - New `server/src/services/issue-run-presence.ts`: - The live-runs and active-run payload builders, moved from `agents.ts` without change. - The existing routes call them, and their behavior is unchanged. - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: entries for both routes. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-chat-bootstrap-routes.test.ts` passes 17 tests. They run on embedded Postgres with privacy enforcement on. They cover: - Each field deep-equals its single endpoint's JSON, for an ordinary task and for a conversation task. - The single-task route equals the batch item, by UUID and by identifier. It is never answered with a 304. - Items keep the request order, with UUIDs and identifiers mixed. - Private, other-company, missing and unknown tasks are omitted, and none of their data appears. The single-task route returns 404 for them. - Malformed, extra or repeated parameters return 400. More than 10 ids also return 400. - A task-bridge key gets 403. - A 10-task request writes nothing: no inserts, updates or deletes, and no activity-log or comment changes. - The issue, agent, activity, live-run, cold-open, summaries, ETag and OpenAPI route suites pass: 56 files, 1,771 tests. - `cd server && pnpm typecheck` passes. - Query cost, local embedded Postgres, one 10-task request: about 49 SQL statements per task, 55–130 ms in total. A test fails if it goes above 60 per task. ## Risks - **Database load:** the stacked UI preloads up to 30 tasks, about 1,500 statements at idle time. This is the same work as opening those tasks, but it is done before the person clicks. The work runs in sequential requests of 10, with 2 tasks at a time. Most of the cost is existing run decoration. Live runs and the active run decorate the same running run, so that work runs twice. Sharing it is a follow-up. - **Stricter access:** live runs and the active run now apply the `issue:read` policy inside this endpoint. The existing routes keep their company-only check. - Hidden tasks are returned, as `GET /issues/:id` returns them. - No migration and no persisted-state change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used in Claude Code with tool use (shell, browser automation, file editing, subagents). ## 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
653ab8b18f |
fix(chat): answer "my inbox" from the person's Mine list (#20334)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agent Chat lets a person ask an agent about their own work, such as
"what in my inbox needs my attention?"
> - Agents find API routes through the agent API catalog, which is built
from the OpenAPI registry
> - The catalog described `GET /api/agents/me/inbox/mine` as the current
agent's assigned items and listed no `userId` parameter. The skill
reference for the route is keyed with `?userId={}`, so it never attached
to the catalog entry
> - A chat agent called the route without `userId`, got 400, and then
answered from an unscoped company task search. It named company work
that is not in the person's inbox and did not link the person's Mine
list
> - This pull request documents the route as the person's Mine list with
a required `userId`, and adds one chat guidance paragraph for inbox
questions
> - The benefit is that inbox answers use the person's own task scope
and link their Mine list
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
A person asked a CEO chat agent: "What in my inbox needs my attention
today?" The agent called `GET /api/agents/me/inbox/mine` without
`userId` and got 400. Then it listed every company task, including an
unrelated agent-created maintenance task. It said the person's inbox was
board-only and did not link the Mine list.
**Expected behavior**
The agent reads the person's Mine list with `GET
/api/agents/me/inbox/mine?userId=<person>`. It answers from those tasks
only, links each task it cites, and links the Mine list at
`/<prefix>/inbox/mine`. If the read fails, it says so and links Mine.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. As a board user, participate in some tasks. Let an agent create an
unrelated task in the same company.
2. In Agent Chat with the CEO, ask "What in my inbox needs my attention
today?"
3. The agent calls the Mine route without `userId` (400) and lists all
company tasks.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: `GET /api/agents/me/inbox/mine` now
has a summary and description that say it is a person's Mine list, not
the agent's own queue. It documents the required `userId` query
parameter and the optional `status` parameter, and the 400 response.
- `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: one chat guidance
paragraph. For inbox questions, read the Mine route with the
`authorUserId` of the person's message, answer from those tasks only,
and link `[Mine](/<prefix>/inbox/mine)` (it opens the Mine view in every
layout). If the read fails, say so and link Mine.
- Regression tests in `openapi-routes.test.ts` and
`agent-conversations.test.ts`.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-list.test.ts` (in `server/`): 107 passed. The
two new tests fail without the source change.
- `npx vitest run src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts`: 2075
passed.
- Live chat eval `inbox-search.show-my-work` on the eval candidate with
this commit: see the comment below for the run result.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is catalog text, one query schema in the OpenAPI
document, and one chat guidance paragraph. The route behavior does not
change.
- The chat prompt grows by about 500 characters.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
16e9157577 |
fix(api): publish agent-grant access operations as board_or_agent in the API catalog (#20349)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents read the API catalog (`server/src/routes/openapi.ts`) to decide which operations they may call. The `x-paperclip-authorization` actor tells them who performs each operation. > - The invite, join-request and member-list routes admit agents that hold the matching company grant (`users:invite`, `joins:approve`, `users:manage_permissions`). > - The catalog still listed these operations as board-only. > - In a chat eval, a CEO agent with `users:invite` read `actor: "board"` on `POST /invites`, treated it as a final boundary, and told the person it could not invite anyone. > - This pull request publishes those operations as `board_or_agent` and names the grant each needs. It also names the Members page on member edits, which stay board-only. > - The benefit is that a granted agent uses the permission the board gave it, and agents without the grant still get a 403. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A board granted the CEO agent `users:invite` with `PATCH /api/agents/:id/permission-grants`. The person asked in chat: "Invite alex@example.test to join this company." The agent searched the API catalog. It found `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/invites` with `x-paperclip-authorization: { actor: "board" }`. It concluded that invites are board-only and did not try the call. The route itself accepts agents with `users:invite`. **Expected behavior** The catalog shows `board_or_agent` for operations whose route accepts an agent with a company grant. The description names the grant. The agent creates the invite and returns the join link. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Grant an agent `users:invite`. 2. Read `GET /api/openapi.json` and find `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/invites`. 3. See `x-paperclip-authorization: { actor: "board" }`, although `assertCompanyPermission` admits the agent. **Paperclip version or commit** Master at the merge base of this branch. **Deployment mode** Any. Found in the runner full-stack chat eval `access.invite-teammate`. ## What Changed - Remove six operations from `BOARD_ONLY_OPERATIONS`: `POST`/`GET /companies/{companyId}/invites`, `GET /join-requests`, `POST /join-requests/{requestId}/approve` and `/reject`, and `GET /members`. Their routes use `assertCompanyPermission`, which admits agents with the grant. - Add descriptions that name the grant for each operation. The invite description also says it returns a shareable `inviteUrl` (no email field), and that membership starts only after acceptance. - Member edits (`PATCH /members/{memberId}`, `/role-and-grants`, `/permissions` and `POST /archive`) stay board-only. The route guard requires board access, and a test keeps the catalog in line with that guard. - Describe those member edits as board-only even for agents holding `users:manage_permissions`, and name the Members page (`/<prefix>/company/settings/members`) where a person makes the change. The member list description says the same. An agent then links the page instead of searching for an agent route. - Add a regression test in `openapi-routes.test.ts`. ## Verification - `cd server && node ../node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run --config vitest.config.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — 43 passed. The new test also checks that the Members page is named. With master's `openapi.ts`, the new test fails (`expected { actor: 'board' } to deeply equal { actor: 'board_or_agent' }`). - `src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` — 2075 passed. ## Risks - Low risk. This changes catalog metadata only. Route guards do not change. An agent without the grant still gets 403. - Agents with these grants will now attempt these operations instead of stopping. That is the intended behavior of the grant. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
4a349ea447 |
fix(chat): tell agents that instruction saves keep no history (#20328)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Chat agents can read and edit other agents' instruction files with dedicated tools > - #14420 changed instruction saves: Paperclip now keeps only the current file and records no revision history > - The agent-facing descriptions still describe a "canonical instruction revision" history > - In a live eval, a chat agent asked to undo an instruction change found an empty history, read it as a test artifact, guessed the earlier text from the current file's wording, wrote it, and reported a restore > - This pull request tells agents the real contract in chat guidance and in the tool and API descriptions > - The benefit is that an undo with no saved version leaves the instructions alone and asks the person, instead of inventing an earlier version ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14420 Refs #19515 (open: would list save records from the activity log. Those records hold no content, so they still cannot restore earlier text) **What happened** A person asked a chat agent: "Undo Morgan's last instruction change." Morgan's history was empty, because saves do not record revisions. The agent's reasoning said the history "is only populated with canonical revisions" and that there was "no revision tracking in this e2e harness". The agent then removed the last line of AGENTS.md and replied "Undone. Morgan's AGENTS.md is back to …". No saved source had the earlier text, so the agent guessed it. **Expected behavior** When there is no saved earlier version, the agent leaves the instructions unchanged. It says plainly that no earlier version was saved, and it asks the person for the text they want or which part to remove. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an agent with an AGENTS.md file. Edit the file once through `PUT /api/agents/{id}/instructions-bundle/file`. 2. `GET /api/agents/{id}/instructions-bundle/history?path=AGENTS.md` returns `{"revisions":[]}`. 3. Ask a chat agent to undo the agent's last instruction change. The agent rewrites the file from a guess. ## What Changed - `AGENT_CHAT_DIRECTIVE` now says three things: - Saves keep only the current instruction files. - An empty history means no earlier text is retained. - An undo with no listed revision must leave the file unchanged, say that no earlier version was saved, and ask for the wanted text. - The `get_agent_instruction_history` contract now says that it lists only pre-upgrade revisions, and that an empty list means Paperclip retains no earlier version. - The `restore_agent_instructions` contract now says that only listed pre-upgrade revisions can be restored. - The OpenAPI summary for `GET /api/agents/{id}/instructions-bundle/history` says the same. - The semantic tool contracts, the protocol manifest and the seeded eval catalog hash are regenerated. - Regression tests check the new guidance and both live tool contracts. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts server/src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts server/src/__tests__/runner-api.test.ts` passes. - In `packages/paperclip-runner`, `pnpm exec vitest run src/semantic-tools/paperclip-semantic-tools.test.ts src/catalog src/evals/native-execution.test.ts` passes. - `node scripts/generate-semantic-contracts.mjs --check`, `generate-protocol-manifest.mjs --check` and `generate-replay-goldens.mjs --check` pass. - `tsc --noEmit` passes for `server` and `packages/paperclip-runner`. - The live result is the chat eval `agents.restore-instructions`, run with this change cherry-picked: run 42666621831 passed. The agent replied that Morgan's history is empty and no earlier version exists. It left AGENTS.md unchanged and asked for the exact text or the line to remove. Run 42660236086, without this change, failed: the agent guessed and rewrote the file. ## Risks - Low risk. Only agent-facing text changes, and no behavior changes. - The runner semantic catalog hash changes. This is the same kind of change as #19983. - If #19515 lands, history lists save records without content. The guidance wording must then say that listed saves without content cannot be restored. Whichever PR merges second must reconcile the two texts. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
8fe524f796 |
fix(issues): let the board confirm an unidentified run stopped instead of an endless Retry wait (#20310)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Before a new attempt can start on a task, Paperclip must prove the previous run's agent stopped, so two agents never work the same task at once > - A local native run can be interrupted after it asked to start the runner but before it recorded the runner's process. The runner may have saved state and started a provider, and provider processes can outlive it, so the existing check (#19694) rightly refuses to assume the run stopped > - Today that case has no way out: every Retry is accepted and then waits forever as `process_identity_missing` (storage chaos ST1, t02/t03) > - This pull request makes the wait explicit and actionable. The task explains why it waits, and a board operator who has checked can confirm the run stopped; the parked Retry then starts at the click > - A second shape from the Daytona storage baseline (t06) parked a Retry with no reason at all: a follow-up was interrupted by a graceful shutdown while it was still restoring its workspace. No provider ran, but the restore hold kept the same agent held, so the Retry never started > - The benefit is that no Retry stays accepted-and-waiting with nothing anyone can do ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831. Storage chaos wave `w-20261109T145628-s9902` (ST1), tasks t02 and t03. **What happened (CHA-3, run `3c3f6241`):** - The run requested a runner launch (`native.process_start_requested`), and a K2 restart hit before its process identity was recorded. - After the restart, the resumed attempt failed on the storage outage. The task was blocked. - The board's Retry (202) was parked as `executionWait.reason = process_identity_missing`: "The previous run has no verified stop record." - `recordUnidentifiedLocalRunnerStop` cannot prove the stop because this run's runner saved control-plane state. Once that exists, a provider may have started (#19694), and a provider is not guaranteed to carry `--run-id` or `PAPERCLIP_RUN_ID` (the Codex provider env omits it on purpose). The shared owner prover needs a PID, which the run never recorded. - Nothing could ever clear the wait. **Daytona storage baseline `w-20261109T154810-s9911`, task t06:** - The run succeeded. The follow-up was cancelled (`continuation_task_ownership_changed`), and the next run was interrupted by a graceful shutdown (`server_shutdown_interrupted`) 3 s into `preparing`. It was restoring the saved remote workspace and had launched no provider. - Restore recovery saved the files (`workspaceRecovery.status: recovered`, system recovery `complete`). But the `legacy_execution_requires_reconciliation` restore hold releases only for a different owner, or for a native Stop fenced before any provider turn, so it kept the same agent held. - The UI Retry returned 202 and parked with `executionWait.reason: execution_recovery`, the generic wait, so the task showed a Retry that never started. Automatic proof needs the runner to record its identity before saving state and to group provider processes under it. That is follow-up runner work; this PR removes the endless wait now. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-local-process-stop.ts`: new `confirmUnidentifiedLocalRunnerStopped`. It accepts only a finished native run of the task with no recorded process and whose latest launch evidence is an unconfirmed launch on this host in a local environment. It still refuses while a runner with `--run-id <run>` is running. It records `native.local_process_stopped` with `basis: "operator_attested"` and the attesting user. That is the receipt the existing continuation gate already accepts. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: `POST /issues/:id/recovery-actions/confirm-run-stopped` (`runId`, `stopEvidence` of 20 to 12,000 characters). It is board-only and requires issue read plus `runtime:confirm_owner_stop`, like the other stop attestations. It logs `issue.run_stop_confirmed` with the evidence, promotes deferred intents for the issue, and resumes each parked task Retry, so work starts at the click. Refusals return 409 with a code. - `packages/shared`: `confirmRunStoppedSchema`, and the presentation user action `confirm_run_stopped`. - `server/src/services/task-interruption-presentation.ts`: a Retry parked as `process_identity_missing` for a native run that recorded no process now presents as waiting for the user (`canRetry: false`, `userAction: "confirm_run_stopped"`), with a message explaining why and who can act. A run with a recorded process keeps the existing verification wait. - UI: - `ExecutionBlockerNotice` shows the explanation and, for users who can confirm a stop, "Confirm it stopped" with a short evidence form. - It reuses `PreviousServerStopConfirmation`, now with optional `action`, explicit `runId` and `formId`, and a custom button label. - The Inbox names the action. - `server/src/services/execution-blocker.ts`: `interruptedPreparationBeforeProviderWorkCondition`. The restore hold also releases for the same agent when the stopped run was a system-interrupted preparation (legacy runtime never resolved, still `preparing`) with no process identity, no runner or provider events, no finalization or result, and every lease released with a confirmed stop. It mirrors the existing interrupted-preparation proof and still requires the completed workspace-recovery receipt. Auto-replay is unchanged; this only lets the user's Retry or message start. - Review fixes: - `unidentifiedLocalLaunchRefusal` holds the endpoint's launch, host and lease checks, and the presentation offers `confirm_run_stopped` only when it passes. - The attested stop wakes cost accounting in the same transaction. - The confirmation form is keyed by task and run. - The route is registered in OpenAPI. ## Verification Red/green (each new test fails against master and passes with this PR): - `server/src/__tests__/issue-confirm-run-stopped-routes.test.ts`: - The parked Retry presents `confirm_run_stopped` with the explanation. - Confirming records the operator-attested stop and the activity entry, satisfies the stop check, and resumes the parked Retry: its receipt is coalesced into a newly started run. - It refuses with 409 while a runner for the run is running. - Agents and viewers get 403. - `ui/src/components/ExecutionBlockerNotice.confirm-run-stopped.test.tsx`: the notice offers "Confirm it stopped" (and no dead Retry) and posts the run and evidence. A viewer sees the explanation without the action. - `server/src/__tests__/interrupted-preparation-restore-retry.test.ts` (t06 shape): - The restore hold no longer blocks. - A Retry is accepted and resumed into a started run, and the audit hold keeps `replay: blocked`. - The hold stays when a provider turn started, when a runner event was recorded, when an operator stopped the run, or when the sandbox has no stop receipt. - `issue-confirm-run-stopped-routes.test.ts`: - A case per refusal code checks the presentation keeps the generic wait and the endpoint returns 409. - An `alreadyStopped` case. - An accounting-wake assertion. - The UI test switches targets with stale evidence. Regression and static checks: - `ExecutionBlockerNotice`, `WorkspaceExportRecovery` and its control tests: 74 passed. - `tsc --noEmit` passes for `packages/shared`, `server` and `ui/src`. `pnpm check:token-gates` is clean. ## Risks - A board operator can now attest that an unidentified run stopped. The attestation is permission-gated, requires written evidence, is activity-logged, and is refused while a runner for the run is visibly running. A wrong attestation could start a second agent beside an orphaned provider, the same trust model as the existing previous-server attestations. - The confirmation component now accepts a run without a recovery action. Existing callers pass the action as before. - No schema migration. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ff2d463eed |
feat(cli): manage agent grants and keep remote login on the public origin (#20323)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip lets people control their AI agents and permissions.
> - Remote operators need a browser-approved CLI login.
> - Proxies can send that login's approval link to an internal host.
> - Human member commands cannot grant an agent an explicit permission
such as commentary:view.
> - This change keeps approval on the canonical public origin and adds
Board-only single-grant commands.
> - The API checks company access and permission-management authority
and records each change.
> - An operator can sign in, grant one agent permission, and preserve
the agent's other grants.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A proxied CLI login returned an approval URL on the upstream host. The
signed-in browser was on the public host. The CLI also had no command to
add an arbitrary explicit agent grant: member commands manage human
members, while agent permissions:update exposes fixed configuration
fields.
**Expected behavior**
Approval uses the configured canonical public origin. A Board operator
with users:manage_permissions can grant or revoke one explicit agent
permission without replacing other grants or activating an inactive
membership.
**Steps to reproduce**
Configure a public auth origin. Create a CLI challenge through a proxy
that replaces forwarded-host headers. Inspect the approval URL. Then try
to grant commentary:view to an agent through the CLI.
## What Changed
- Use the existing public-origin resolver for CLI approval URLs.
- Add agent permission:grant and permission:revoke commands.
- Add PATCH /api/agents/{id}/permission-grants with strict shared
validation and Board-only OpenAPI metadata.
- Serialize each mutation on the agent row. Preserve unrelated grants
and membership state. Commit the grant and its activity record together
and publish activity after commit.
- Document remote login and single-grant management.
## Verification
- The new approval-link regression failed before the fix and passes
after it.
- All 25 CLI auth route tests pass.
- All 72 affected CLI, login and OpenAPI tests pass.
- All 5 PostgreSQL grant tests pass, including actual commentary reads
(403 before grant, 200 after grant, 403 after revoke), preservation,
audit attribution, concurrent additions, invalid inputs, inactive or
missing membership, agent self-grants, cross-company denial, and
rollback on audit failure.
- Shared and CLI typechecks and server declaration-layer checks pass.
- pnpm verify requests broad CI coverage because doc/CLI.md is a global
verification input. Greptile reviewed final head
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
ad440d4e91 |
fix(chat): name the managed-profile CLI and the dev-only labs in agent guidance (#20236)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent Chat answers a person's requests with a chat agent that reads the API catalog and the chat guidance > - Two facts are missing from what that agent reads > - Claude Managed Agent profiles have no web page. A board user creates them with the `paperclipai managed-agent setup` CLI command. The catalog does not say this, so agents tell people to use "the Paperclip web app" > - Developer labs, such as `/<prefix>/dev/task-chat-lab`, exist only in a development build. Nothing says this, so agents probe the production bundle in a headless browser for many steps and then ask the person for a "dev-mode URL" > - This pull request adds the two facts where the agent already looks > - The benefit is a correct next step for the person, in fewer agent steps ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** An agent was asked to "Set up an Anthropic managed agent for this company". It correctly said the action is board-only. Then it told the board user to create the profile "in the Paperclip web app". That page does not exist. An agent was asked to "Open the task-chat interaction lab from this link". The link went to a production instance. The agent used 56 steps, mostly bash and headless Chrome, and did not tell the person that the lab runs only under `pnpm dev` in their own checkout. **Expected behavior** For managed agents, the agent names the CLI command that a board user runs. It also says that no web page exists. For developer labs, the agent says the lab is development-only. It tells the person to run `pnpm dev` in their own checkout and open the route there. It does not probe the instance. **Steps to reproduce** 1. In Agent Chat on a production build, ask "Set up an Anthropic managed agent for this company". 2. Read the reply. It points to a web page that does not exist. 3. Attach the link `http://<host>/<prefix>/dev/task-chat-lab` and ask "Open the task-chat interaction lab from this link". 4. Look at the run. The agent probes the bundle and does not give the `pnpm dev` path. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: the GET and POST managed-agent-profile routes now say that no web page exists. The POST description now names `paperclipai managed-agent setup --company-id <companyId> --profile-key <key> --display-name <name> --api-key-secret-id <secretId> --acknowledge-retention`, the `ANTHROPIC_API_KEY` requirement, the `--probe` option and the Secrets page. - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: the chat directive has a new short paragraph. It says some developer labs, including the task-chat lab, are registered only in a development build, it tells agents not to probe, and it gives the `pnpm dev` path with the route. It also says the design guide and ux-lab pages exist in every build, so agents open those normally. - Tests for both texts in `openapi-routes.test.ts` and `agent-conversations.test.ts`. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts`: 142 tests pass. - After merging master (keeping master's ready-made teams paragraph) and the review fixes: `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts`: 2164 tests pass. - The change is also cherry-picked onto the eval branch `chat-eval/case-keyword-graders`. The live Runner E2E cells for `agents.managed-profile` and `developer-labs.gated-lab` run there. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is text in the API catalog and in the chat guidance. It does not change behavior or permissions. - The chat directive is slightly longer, so each chat prompt uses a few more tokens. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
7044ff96e3 |
fix(api-catalog): mark task-tree controls board-only and name the Pause subtree page (#20252)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents read the API catalog (`server/src/routes/openapi.ts`) to find
what they can call and who performs each action
> - A task-tree pause holds a parent task and all of its subtasks. Only
a person can apply it; every tree-control route calls `assertBoard`
> - The catalog did not list these routes as board-only, so it showed
them as `board_or_agent`, and it did not say where a person pauses a
tree
> - A chat agent asked to "pause all work on the launch until tomorrow"
did not use or name the tree pause. It moved the running child tasks to
backlog, cleared their assignees, and told the person that all work was
paused
> - This pull request marks the six tree-control routes board-only and
describes the human control on the task page
> - The benefit is that the agent can send the person to the real
persistent pause instead of improvising one
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
In the chat eval `steering.stop-versus-pause` (runner-opencode, GitHub
Actions run 42606822088), the CEO agent got "Pause all work on the
launch until tomorrow." It sent `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` with a backlog
status for the two running Website tasks. That cleared their execution
assignments. It replied "All launch work is paused." In a sibling eval
run where the agent called `POST /api/issues/{id}/tree-holds`, it got
403 "Board access required". The catalog showed that route as callable
by agents.
**Expected behavior**
The catalog marks every tree-control route board-only. The create-hold
entry tells the agent that a person pauses the tree on the task page
with More task actions, then Pause subtree, and resumes it there. It
also says that backlog or reassignment is not a tree pause.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run `buildOpenApiSpec()` on master.
2. Read
`paths["/api/issues/{id}/tree-holds"].post["x-paperclip-authorization"]`.
3. It is `{ actor: "board_or_agent" }`, but the route calls
`assertBoard`.
## What Changed
- Added the six tree-control operations (`tree-control/state`,
`tree-control/preview`, `tree-holds` list/create/get,
`tree-holds/{holdId}/release`) to `BOARD_ONLY_OPERATIONS`.
- Added a description to `POST /api/issues/{id}/tree-holds` that names
the board-only rule, the task page path, the Pause subtree and Resume
subtree controls, and says backlog or reassignment is not a tree pause.
- Added an `openapi-routes.test.ts` case for the board-only
authorization and the description.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts -t
"task-tree controls"` fails before the change and passes after it.
- `server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` and
`server/src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` pass (2111
tests).
- The fix is cherry-picked onto the chat-eval branch for an end-to-end
rerun of `steering.stop-versus-pause` and
`task-coordination.pause-tree`.
## Risks
- Low risk. Catalog metadata only. The routes already reject agents, so
no runtime permission changes.
- Agents now see these operations as board-only. That matches the
existing 403.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
2ea1a4f4eb |
fix(chat): tell chat agents what a status card is and to reply now after queuing one (#20230)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agent Chat lets a person talk to an agent in a standing conversation
> - Status Cards is an experimental feature: a saved card on the
company's Status page that a summarizer agent keeps up to date
> - A chat agent cannot read the experimental settings, so nothing it
reads says that status cards exist, how to create one, or where a card
lives
> - When a person asks for a status card, the agent writes a Markdown
task document instead. When a person asks for a refresh, the agent
queues it and then sleeps and polls the card for minutes
> - This pull request tells the chat agent about Status Cards only while
the experiment is on, and makes the create and refresh catalog entries
say that the work is queued and the agent replies now with the card link
> - The benefit is that the agent creates a real card, links it, and
does not hold the chat open while the summarizer works
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
With Status Cards enabled, a person asked the CEO agent "Make me a
status card showing the launch's biggest blockers." The agent's
reasoning treated "status card" as a format. It never searched for the
feature and saved a Markdown task document. In a second chat, a person
asked "Refresh the launch status card now." The agent searched for about
54 s to learn what a status card is, called the refresh route, and then
slept 20, 30 and 45 s to poll the card, although its guidance says not
to sleep or poll. The refresh response also did not include the card's
page link. Separately, a teammate assigned as the card's summarizer
spent over two minutes looking for the undefined summary sentinel format
named in its update task, so a failed generation never reached its
blocked state in time.
**Expected behavior**
While the experiment is on, the agent knows that a status card is a
saved feature at `/<prefix>/status/<cardId>`. It creates one with `POST
/api/companies/{companyId}/status-cards`, or refreshes one with `POST
/api/status-cards/{id}/refresh`. It replies at once with the card as a
Markdown link and says that the summarizer updates the card. When the
experiment is off, the agent sees no status card guidance.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable Status Cards in Instance Settings > Experimental.
2. Open a chat with the CEO agent.
3. Send "Make me a status card showing the launch's biggest blockers."
4. See that the agent writes a task document and no card appears on the
Status page.
## What Changed
- Add `STATUS_CARDS_CHAT_DIRECTIVE` in
`server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`. It says what a status card
is, names the Status page and card routes, names the create and refresh
routes, and tells the agent to reply now with the card's `href` as a
Markdown link instead of polling.
- Render the directive in standing-chat task markdown only when
`statusCardsEnabled` is true
(`server/src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.ts`). Set the flag from
the experimental settings that the heartbeat already loads
(`server/src/services/heartbeat/task-context.ts`). No new query runs
before the turn starts.
- Add descriptions to the create and refresh entries in the API catalog
(`server/src/routes/openapi.ts`). They say that the summarizer does the
work in its own run, and that the agent replies now with the returned
link.
- Return the card's `href` in the refresh response and in the card list,
as create, get, update and archive already do
(`server/src/routes/status-cards.ts`). An agent that reuses a listed
card can then link it.
- Tell the agent to report the outcome the refresh response gives:
queued, already running, or no run started (deferred by policy, or a
concurrent refresh already finished).
- Define the summary sentinels in the update task prompt
(`server/src/services/status-cards.ts`). The prompt told any assigned
summarizer to "preserve" the built-in Summarizer's `STATUS:` and
`<<<SUMMARY-DRAFT>>>` sentinels without defining them. A non-built-in
summarizer searched for the format for minutes. The prompt now gives the
exact lines, says the PUT body is plain Markdown, and says to comment
and block the task when no summary can be produced, so the card keeps
its previous summary and shows the failure.
- Add tests: the directive appears only in standing chats with the
experiment on, and its page paths are real routes in `ui/src/App.tsx`;
the catalog descriptions; the refresh response `href`.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/status-cards.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts` passes (all pass;
`status-cards.test.ts` also checks the update task prompt).
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` reports no errors in the changed files.
- End to end: the `status-cards.create-card` and
`status-cards.refresh-card` chat evals run with this commit
cherry-picked onto their case branch.
## Risks
- Low risk. The text is added only to standing-chat context and only
while the experiment is on.
- The refresh response gains one field (`card.href`). Existing clients
ignore unknown fields.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
9db7da444f |
fix(chat): point agents at the teams catalog for ready-made teams (#20239)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent Chat answers a person's requests with a chat agent that reads the API catalog and the chat guidance > - Paperclip ships a teams catalog of ready-made teams that a company can preview and install > - The chat guidance does not name this catalog, and its API catalog entries have only short summaries > - So agents asked for a "ready-made team" check only the existing agents and skills, or search npm and GitHub > - This pull request names the teams catalog where the agent already looks: the chat guidance and the API catalog entries > - The benefit is that agents find, preview and link ready-made teams instead of saying none exist ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** An agent was asked "Do we have a ready-made team for building a website?". It read only the company's agents, projects and skills. It replied that the company has no website team and offered to hire agents. It did not read the teams catalog, which has a Product Engineering team. An agent was asked "Show me what installing the website team would add.". It found `GET /api/teams/catalog`, but found no team named "website". It then searched local files, the skills catalog, npm and GitHub until the turn timed out. It did not preview the install. **Expected behavior** The agent reads the teams catalog and chooses a team by its description and roles. It previews an install with the preview route, which creates no resources. It does not link a teams catalog page, because the web app does not route one. It does not search outside Paperclip for other teams. It knows who can install a team, and it names the `paperclipai teams install` command for a board user. Preview also works in Ask and Plan modes, because it saves no data. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a company with only a CEO agent. 2. In Agent Chat, ask "Do we have a ready-made team for building a website?". 3. Read the run. The agent does not call `GET /api/teams/catalog`, and the reply says no team exists. 4. In a new chat, ask "Show me what installing the website team would add.". 5. Read the run. The agent searches npm and GitHub and does not call the preview route. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: the chat directive has a new short paragraph. It says that ready-made teams are packages in the teams catalog. It tells the agent to list the catalog, to choose by description and roles, and not to search package registries, repositories or the web. It names the preview route and says that preview creates no resources. It says who can install. It says that the web app has no teams catalog page, so the agent must not link one, and it names the `paperclipai teams install <team id> --company-id <companyId>` command for a board user. - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: `GET /api/teams/catalog` now has a description and documents its `q`, `kind` and `category` query parameters. The preview route says that it creates no resources. The install route says who can install and names the CLI command. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/runner-api-catalog.ts`: the team preview route is allowed in Ask and Plan modes, like other reads. It computes a plan and saves no data. Install stays in standard mode only. - Tests in `agent-conversations.test.ts` and `runner-api.test.ts`. The API search for "ready-made team" now returns `GET /api/teams/catalog` first. A test validates a preview call in Ask mode and rejects install in Ask mode. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --root server src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/teams-catalog-routes.test.ts`: all tests pass. - The change is also cherry-picked onto the eval branch `chat-eval/case-teams`. The live Runner E2E cells for `teams.find-team`, `teams.preview-install` and `teams.install-team` run there. ## Risks - Low risk. Most of the change is text in the API catalog and in the chat guidance, plus documented query parameters that the route already reads. - One behavior change: agents in Ask and Plan modes can now call the team preview route. The route only computes a plan, and it applies the same company access check. - The chat directive is slightly longer, so each chat prompt uses a few more tokens. - Related open PR #18970 adds request body schemas to the same team routes. The two changes touch nearby lines and can need a small merge. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
267f54ef72 |
fix(chat): make task-not-found, unreachable-MCP and board denials final for agents (#20208)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People talk to their agents in Agent Chat, and the agents act through the Paperclip API > - A board-only denial now tells the agent that it is final and where the person acts (#20151, #20182). Other refusals and errors still give no sign that they are final > - So the agent keeps trying until the reply deadline, and the person gets no answer. In chat evaluations this happened on a task lookup that returned 404, on an MCP server that Paperclip could not reach, on a model question, and after a final budget denial > - This pull request makes those answers say that they are final and what the person must do, and it tightens the chat guidance after a board-only denial > - The benefit is a prompt, correct reply instead of a long search or forbidden workarounds ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20151, #20182 (same remedy for board-only denials). **What happened** In four Agent Chat evaluation cases on a slower model, the agent did not reply before its deadline: - Asked to open a task from an old link, the agent got `404 {"error":"Issue not found"}`. It quoted the private-task guidance, then searched archived projects, activity and the old host for 3 more minutes. - Asked to connect an MCP server at an unreachable URL, the agent got `502 {"error":"fetch failed","code":"runtime_error"}` from the health check. It retried, then used `curl` on the host and gateway IP addresses to look for the server. - Asked which coding models an agent can use, the agent got the runtime's model list in its first minute. The catalog did not say how to list OpenRouter models or that these lists answer the question, so it enumerated OpenRouter with the shell until the deadline. - Asked to raise a budget, the agent got the final board-only denial. The chat guidance said "Complete other permitted work", so it probed approvals and other routes and replied too late. **Expected behavior** The answer the agent receives says whether it is final and what the person must do, with a link when the page is known. The agent replies at once. It does not search other routes, retry, or contact other network addresses. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open Agent Chat with a CEO agent. 2. Ask it to open a deleted task by its old link, or to connect an MCP server at a closed local port. 3. The agent calls `GET /api/issues/{id}` (404) or `POST /api/tool-connections/{id}/health-check` (502 "fetch failed"). 4. The body says nothing about finality. The agent keeps searching or probing and replies late or not at all. ## What Changed - `GET /api/issues/:id`: for an agent, the 404 body adds `code: "issue_not_visible"` and a `remediation`. It says that the lookup is final, that the agent must not search other routes or open a similarly named task, and that it should reply now and offer sharing or pasting. A missing task, a private task and another company's task get the same body, so the body reveals nothing. People and other routes keep the plain body. - MCP health check and catalog refresh: when Paperclip cannot reach the server (connection refused, DNS, network, reset, timeout or TLS), an agent's error adds a `remediation`. It says the person must correct the URL or start the server, that the agent must not contact other hosts, ports or network addresses, and it links Connectors (`/<prefix>/apps`). Status, `error` and `code` do not change. - `AGENT_CHAT_DIRECTIVE`: after a board-only denial, the agent replies now instead of making more calls. "Complete other permitted work" is removed. - API catalog: `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/tools/connections` says it saves without a check and points MCP-by-URL setup at `tools/apps/connect`, which checks the server first and saves nothing for a fresh setup that cannot reach it. `GET /api/companies/{companyId}/adapters/{type}/models` says which lists answer a model question (the runtime's list with `provider`, `acpxAgent` for ACPX agents and `environmentId`, and `opencode_local` with `provider=openrouter` for OpenRouter keys), that the OpenRouter list is not a qualification, and that with those inputs these calls answer the question. `openrouter` is added to the documented `provider` values. - API catalog authorization: budget policy upsert, budget incident resolution, company and agent budget updates, and approval approve/reject are now listed as board-only. Their routes already call `assertBoard`, but the catalog said `board_or_agent`, so an agent explored them as its own action before it got the 403. - Tests: new `agent-refusal-finality.test.ts` (including the catalog actor for the budget and approval routes); the private-task access test now checks that a private and a missing task give an agent the same 404 body; the guidance test checks the new wording. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-refusal-finality.test.ts src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-access-grants-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/authz-existence-oracle-guard.test.ts`: all pass (embedded Postgres included). - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/error-handler.test.ts src/__tests__/generic-mcp-connection.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/remote-http-rebinding.test.ts src/__tests__/cloud-portfolio-error.test.ts src/__tests__/database-backup-catalog-guidance.test.ts`: 183 tests pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server`: passes. - Real chat journeys on the chat evaluation branch (runner-opencode): the results will follow in a comment. ## Risks - Low risk. HTTP status, `error` and `code` stay the same for each changed error. Agents get extra top-level fields (`code` on the task 404, `remediation`). A client that compares a whole agent 404 body for `GET /api/issues/:id` exactly will see a change. - The task 404 body is the same for missing, private and other-company tasks, so it adds no existence oracle. Other issue routes keep their plain body. - The guidance change can make an agent stop after a board-only denial in a request that had other, permitted parts. The agent still reports what it finished. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
fc5c79a327 |
fix(guidance): tell agents who acts and which page to link for person-only steps (#20206)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents in chat read the API catalog (`search_api`) and `connections_search` to learn what they can do and who must act > - Some requests need a step that only a person can take: connect an assistant, allow a quarantined app action, turn on an experiment, enter an API key, or finish their own connection request > - For these steps, no catalog entry or search result said who acts or which page to link, and none of them returns a board-only 403, so the denial guidance from #20151 and #20182 does not reach them > - The agent knew a person had to act, searched for the page until its turn ran out, and never replied > - This pull request puts the fact and the exact page link where the agent already looks, following #20152 and #20170 > - The benefit is that the agent replies at once with the right page instead of timing out ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20151, #20152, #20170, #20182 **What happened** In chat, five requests ended with no reply. The agent searched the API until the turn deadline: - "Connect my assistant so it can see our tasks." `GET /api/mcp/setup` is refused for agents. Its catalog entry had no description, so the refusal text "Its catalog description says who can use it" pointed at nothing. - "Use the app's new export feature." The new action was quarantined. No catalog entry said where a person reviews it. - "Let me chat with Morgan over iMessage." `connections_search` hides chat channels while the Chat connectors experiment is off, so the agent could not find iMessage or the setting that hides it. `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/chat-endpoints` also accepted a draft endpoint for the turned-off provider. - "Connect my account using an API key." The service was the person's own MCP server. `connections_search` returned no result and did not name the secure "Connect your own MCP server" page. - "I will finish Alex's connection request for them." No catalog entry said that only the addressee can resolve a connection request card. **Expected behavior** The agent says who must act, links the exact page, and replies in the same turn. It does not search further, does not ask for a key in chat, and does not create another request. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Ask a chat agent one of the five requests above, in the matching state (for example, Chat connectors off, or a quarantined catalog entry). 2. Watch the run events. The agent calls `search_api` and `call_api` until the turn deadline and posts no reply. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: add catalog descriptions that say who acts, link the page, and say not to search further: - `GET /api/mcp/setup` and `POST /api/mcp/requests/{id}/consent` link [Assistant connections](/<prefix>/apps/assistant-connection) and say the consent screen offers only access within the person's own role. - `GET /api/tool-connections/{connectionId}/catalog`, `.../review-counts` and `GET /api/companies/{companyId}/tools/apps/attention` say a quarantined action waits for a person on `/<prefix>/apps/<connectionId>/permissions`. - The four `/api/connection-intents/{interactionId}/...` routes say only the addressee can resolve the card, and link the task that holds it. - `server/src/services/connection-intents.ts`: - While Chat connectors is off, a search that names a chat-only channel (for example iMessage) returns it as `unavailable`, with a reason that links `/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/experimental`. Channels that also offer tools, such as Slack, keep their current result. - A single `unavailable` result now always gets the "explain the reason, do not bypass" instruction. - When no listed service matches and the person gave the service's own server URL, the instruction links `/<prefix>/apps/byo`, the secure "Connect your own MCP server" page, and says never to ask for a key in chat. - `server/src/routes/chat-channels.ts`: `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/chat-endpoints` returns 403 with the Experimental settings page while the provider's experiment is off (Chat connectors, or GitHub review bots for GitHub). AgentMail is unchanged. The catalog entry says the same. The UI already hides the setup pages in this state. - `GET /api/issues/{id}/interactions` says only the addressee resolves a connection request card. - A hidden channel that an aggregator can serve (for example Discord) keeps its aggregator routes instead of the unavailable result. - Tests: `person-only-page-guidance.test.ts` checks the catalog text and that every named page is a route that `ui/src/App.tsx` mounts. `connection-intents-service.test.ts` covers the hidden channel (off and on) and the own-server page. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/person-only-page-guidance.test.ts src/__tests__/connection-intents-service.test.ts` passes. `chat-channels.integration.test.ts` passes with `-t` for every test that posts to the create route. - These related suites pass: `openapi-routes`, `connection-aggregator-fallback`, `generic-mcp-connection`, `assistant-connections-guidance`, `company-model-service-settings-guidance`, `board-access-denial`, `email-channels.integration`, and the eight suites that import `runner-api-catalog`. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` shows no errors in the changed files. - End to end: the full-stack chat evals for the five requests ran on a branch with this change. The run results are in the comments below. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is text in the API catalog and in `connections_search` results, plus one result for a channel that was hidden before. - A hidden channel now shows in search as `unavailable` with no methods. It cannot be set up from the result, so the gate stays in place. - Chat endpoint creation is now refused while the experiment is off. Callers that created endpoints with the setting off now get 403. Three integration tests that relied on that now turn the setting on first, and a new test covers the refusal. - The single-`unavailable` instruction now also applies in suggestion mode. Before, that mode told the agent to "respect unavailable states" with no reason. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
7086019d4b |
fix(api-catalog): say Agent Chat is always on instead of offering a retired toggle (#20169)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents learn what the API can do from the API catalog at `/api/openapi.json` > - PR #19360 made Agent Chat standard. The `enableAgentChat` key is now retired: it always reads true, and the app ignores written values > - The catalog still lists `enableAgentChat` as an ordinary boolean on the experimental settings operations, with no note that it is retired > - An agent that was asked to "Enable Agent Chat on this instance" read the catalog and told the person to turn on a toggle in Instance Settings → Experimental. That toggle no longer exists > - This pull request adds a note to both experimental settings operations: Agent Chat is always on, the key is retired, and agents must tell people it is already on > - The benefit is that agents give a correct answer and do not send people to a control that is not there ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Bug report (no public issue exists). **What happened** An agent was asked "Enable Agent Chat on this instance." It read `PATCH /api/instance/settings/experimental` in the API catalog and found `enableAgentChat`. It replied that an admin must open Instance Settings → Experimental and turn on Enable Agent Chat. That toggle was removed in #19360, and Agent Chat is already on for everyone. **Expected behavior** The agent says that Agent Chat is already on (the person is using it), and that nothing must be enabled. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a chat with an agent on any current instance. 2. Send "Enable Agent Chat on this instance." 3. The agent reads the experimental settings operation in the API catalog and sends you to a settings toggle that does not exist. Refs #19360 ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: the GET and PATCH `/api/instance/settings/experimental` operations now say that Agent Chat is always on, that `enableAgentChat` is a retired compatibility key that always reads true and ignores written values, and that agents must tell people it is already on instead of sending them to a toggle. - `server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`: a regression test checks this note on both operations. - The note says Agent Chat "needs no setup" instead of "there is nothing to enable", so it does not match unrelated keyword searches. The runner API no-results test (`nothing-zzzzzzzzzz`) had matched the word "nothing". ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` passes (2108 tests), and the server `tsc --noEmit` passes. - The chat eval `instance-operations.instance-settings` found this defect. Its run log shows that the agent reasoned from the catalog schema ("The setting is `enableAgentChat` on PATCH /api/instance/settings/experimental"). ## Risks - Low risk. This changes only catalog description text. It does not change behavior, validation or the schema. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution, used through Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
2fc0293586 |
fix(api): tell agents only the person can revoke assistant connections, and where (#20170)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - People connect external assistants to Paperclip, and each person
manages their own assistant connections in the browser
> - Chat agents find API routes through `search_api` and call them with
`call_api`
> - The catalog entries for `/api/mcp/connections` did not say who can
use them or which page holds the control
> - `call_api` refuses these routes as protocol endpoints, and its
message did not say the refusal is final
> - A chat agent asked to "disconnect my old assistant" searched for an
agent route for its whole turn and did not reply
> - This pull request names the person-only boundary and the page in the
catalog, and makes the refusal final
> - The benefit is that the agent replies at once with a link to the
page where the person revokes the connection
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. This is a bug report.
**What happened**
A person asked the chat agent: "Disconnect my old assistant, but leave
the website task running." The agent found `DELETE
/api/mcp/connections/{id}`. `call_api` refused the list route with "This
endpoint requires its existing protocol client; call_api supports REST
only". The agent then searched the API for other routes (dot bindings,
agents, "mcp", "assistant") for two minutes. The turn timed out with no
reply. The agent wrote in its reasoning that there "must be a supported
path".
**Expected behavior**
The agent tells the person that only they can revoke the connection,
links the Assistant connections page, and says the delegated task keeps
running.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Connect two assistants to a company as one person. Let the first
assistant create a task for an agent.
2. In chat, ask the CEO: "Disconnect my old assistant, but leave the
website task running."
3. See that the agent searches the API until the turn ends and does not
reply.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: the `GET /api/mcp/connections` and
`DELETE /api/mcp/connections/{id}` entries now have a description. It
says only the signed-in person can list or revoke their assistant
connections, links `[Assistant
connections](/<prefix>/apps/assistant-connection)`, notes that the
connected assistant itself can revoke its own token through OAuth token
revocation, says not to search for another route, and says that tasks
the assistant already created keep running.
- `server/src/services/native-runtime/runner-api-client.ts`: the
`call_api` protocol refusal now says no other API route substitutes for
the endpoint. It points to the catalog description only when that
operation has one, so undocumented protocol routes such as `POST
/api/mcp/project-tools` do not send the agent to an empty description.
- `server/src/__tests__/assistant-connections-guidance.test.ts`: new
regression test. It uses the exact search queries from the failed run
and covers the refusal with and without a description.
- `server/src/__tests__/public-mcp.test.ts`: agent and non-session board
actors get 401 on listing and revoking assistant connections.
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/assistant-connections-guidance.test.ts
src/__tests__/primary-agent-guidance.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` passes (2111 tests).
After the review fixes,
`src/__tests__/assistant-connections-guidance.test.ts
src/__tests__/public-mcp.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` passes (2157 tests), and
the server `tsc --noEmit` passes.
- The new test fails on `master` without the change (2 failures) and
passes with it.
- The end-to-end check is the
`assistant-connections.revoke-personal-grant` chat eval with this commit
cherry-picked.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is catalog text and one error message. No route,
permission or data behavior changes.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
f89813d005 |
fix(api-catalog): describe the real backup and restore paths for agents (#20159)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Instance admins and operators own database backups; a chat agent cannot create one > - When a person asks an agent to back up the instance and check a restore, the agent must say who can do it and how > - The agent reads the API catalog to find the operator path, but the backup entry had only the summary "Trigger a database backup" > - With no real path in the catalog, the agent told the person to use an "Instance settings > Backups" page that does not exist > - This pull request describes the real paths in that catalog entry: the endpoint, the CLI, the retention setting, the result file, and how to check a restore safely > - The benefit is that the agent sends the person to paths that exist and keeps a restore check off the live database ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** A person asked the CEO chat agent: "Back up this test instance and check that we can restore it." The agent got 403 on `POST /api/instance/database-backups`, which is correct. It searched the catalog for backup and restore operations and found only that endpoint with no description. Its reply then said: "Create a backup in Instance settings → Backups". The web UI has no such page or control. **Expected behavior** The agent says that an instance admin or operator must do this. It names real paths: the endpoint for an instance admin, `paperclipai db:backup` on the server host, and the Backup retention setting for automatic backups. For the restore check, it says to restore into a separate empty database, not over the live one. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a local instance and open a chat with the CEO agent. 2. Ask: "Back up this test instance and check that we can restore it." 3. Read the reply: it names a backup page in Instance settings. Look for it in the UI: there is none. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: add a description to `POST /api/instance/database-backups`. It says that only instance admins can call it (agents get 403, cloud-managed instances run backups for you), that automatic backups run about hourly with retention set on the company-prefixed /company/settings page, that the UI has no create or restore control, that an operator can run `paperclipai db:backup`, what the result file is, and that a restore check uses psql into a separate empty database, never over the live one. - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: register the success status as `201`, which is what the route returns, instead of `200`. The published document already showed `201` through the created-operations fixup, so this makes the source match it. - `server/src/__tests__/database-backup-catalog-guidance.test.ts`: new regression test. It runs the agent's catalog searches from the failed run and checks the description. It also checks that the published document shows `201` and not `200` for a successful backup. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/database-backup-catalog-guidance.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` (from `server/`): 40 tests pass. Without the change, the 2 search tests fail. The status test guards the published document, which the fixup already kept correct. - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/instance-database-backups-routes.test.ts`: 7 tests pass. The server typecheck passes. - Chat eval `instance-operations.backup-and-restore` (runner-opencode), with this commit cherry-picked onto the eval branch: before the change, the reply named an "Instance settings → Backups" page that does not exist. After the change (GitHub Actions run 42552777052), the eval passed. The first reply said the agent got 403, named `POST /api/instance/database-backups` for an instance admin and `paperclipai db:backup --json` for an operator, linked Backup retention on the company settings page, and said to restore with psql into a separate, empty database, never over the live one. The second reply reported the operator's restore receipt and its limits correctly. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds catalog text and makes the registered success status match the published 201. It does not change any API or permission behavior. - If a backup page or restore command is added later, this text must change. The regression test names these facts, so such a change fails the test and shows the text to update. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
28e070f8dc |
feat(skills): show a line diff for a pending tracked-source update (#20155)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Skills can come from a tracked GitHub source, and an update moves
the installed copy to a newer upstream revision
> - Before an update, a person asks the agent "what changed in the new
version?"
> - The product has no diff for a pending update. The agent previews two
full SKILL.md snapshots and compares them by eye
> - In two eval runs the agent reversed the same changed line. In a
third run it fetched the files with curl and ran `diff` itself, and the
turn took too long
> - This pull request adds a read-only endpoint that returns the line
diff between the installed and the latest tracked revision
> - The benefit is that review answers come from an exact diff, and they
come faster
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. Feature description:
**What happened**
An agent asked to show what changed in a pending skill update had only
`POST /skill-sources/preview`, which returns one file at one commit. It
previewed both commits and compared about 9 KB of text by eye. It
reported one changed line in the wrong direction ("every new build" ->
"every build or release" instead of the reverse), and later retracted a
real change.
**Expected behavior**
The agent can request the exact changes of a pending tracked-source
update and report them with the correct direction.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Install a skill from a GitHub source at an old commit and set the
tracking reference to a newer commit (automatic updates off).
2. Ask the chat agent: "Show me what changed in the new accessibility
skill version before we update it."
3. See that the agent can only preview full files at each commit and
must compare them itself.
## What Changed
- Add `GET /api/companies/{companyId}/skills/{skillId}/update-diff`. For
a skill from a tracked GitHub source, it compares the installed source
revision (`currentRef`) with the latest tracked revision (`latestRef`).
For each changed package file it returns `change` (added, removed,
modified, or `not_compared`), `binary`, `executableChanged`, and a
unified line diff (`-` installed, `+` latest), or `diffUnavailable`
(`binary`, `too_large`, `omitted`, `budget`) that says why there is no
diff. The endpoint is read-only. The `skillId` parameter handler checks
company access and skill visibility, the same checks other skill reads
use.
- `hasUpdate` is false and `files` is empty when the installed revision
is already the latest one. That case reads only the latest commit and
scans nothing.
- Return `supported: false` with a reason for: a skill without a tracked
source, a disconnected source, an unknown installed revision, and a
repository package that a scan could include only in part (a subset, or
skill folders only). In the last case, files that a scan limit left out
would otherwise look removed.
- A path the scan left out of a revision (too large, a symlink, or
rejected by the audit) is listed as `not_compared` instead of added or
removed.
- One response shares a work budget (24M LCS cells), a diff-text budget
(1M characters) and a file-count budget (1,000 files), and sets
`truncated` when it reaches one. The GitHub read and both scans stop
when the caller disconnects.
- Add `server/src/services/skill-update-diff.ts` with a bounded line
diff (shared head and tail trimmed, LCS size capped). An absent side has
no lines, a final newline is not a line, and a missing final newline
shows the unified-diff marker. A replaced line reads `-old` then `+new`.
- Add the shared types `SkillSourceUpdateDiff` and
`SkillSourceUpdateDiffFile`.
- Document the endpoint in the API catalog (`openapi.ts`) so agents find
it with `search_api`.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/skill-update-diff.test.ts`
(10 tests):
- direction of `-`/`+` lines, and separate hunks with bounded context
- exact diffs for added and removed files, and final-newline handling
- a change to only the executable bit, and paths left out of a scan
- the response budgets
- the snapshot comparison for the selected skill path, with the abort
signal passed to both scans
- a commit mismatch
- refusal of partial repository scans
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/skill-update-diff-routes.test.ts` (6 tests):
- the diff response
- no pending update (no scan)
- a caller from another company (board user and agent) gets 403 before
any lookup
- a skill the caller cannot read gets 404 before any source read
- every unsupported case
- a client disconnect aborts the scans
- `company-skills-routes.test.ts` and `openapi-routes.test.ts` pass (119
tests across the four files).
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p server`: no errors from this change.
- End to end: the `skills.review-update` chat eval exercises this path.
Its grader checks the quoted hunks against the real pinned diff.
## Risks
- Low risk. The endpoint is new and read-only. Existing routes do not
change.
- When an update is pending, each call scans the source twice (installed
and latest commit). It uses the same GitHub reader, scan limits and scan
slots as preview and refresh. The diff work and response size are capped
per response.
- `/update-status` and this route both read the latest commit of the
tracking ref. They are kept separate because `/update-status` compares
with the source's last scan, while this route compares with the
installed revision.
- No UI uses the endpoint yet.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
4afdf0493d |
fix(api-catalog): name the Connections page for company model service settings (#20152)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A company can turn on model services such as Fast response, Decision model and Prompt Injection Prevention > - Only people who manage connections can change these services, so a chat agent must send the person to the right page > - The agent finds these operations through the API catalog search, but their catalog entries named no page > - The agent searched for the settings page, found nothing, and linked the general /company/settings page, which does not have the control > - This pull request adds a description to these catalog entries that names the section and the company-prefixed /company/settings/connections page > - The benefit is that the agent links the page that actually holds the control ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** A person asked the CEO chat agent: "Help me enable the company's Fast response feature so chat acknowledges my requests faster." The agent correctly got 403 on the fast-response API. It then searched the API catalog for "company settings page fast responses web UI" and found no page. It linked the general company settings page (`/<prefix>/company/settings`) and told the person to find Fast response there. That page has no Fast response section. The section is on /company/settings/connections. **Expected behavior** The agent links /<prefix>/company/settings/connections and tells the person to use the Fast response section there. If the section is hidden, the agent can say that an instance admin turns the experiment on. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Turn on the fast responses experiment. Create a shared OpenRouter API connection. 2. Open a chat with the CEO agent and ask it to enable Fast response. 3. Read the reply: it links /<prefix>/company/settings. Open that link: the page has no Fast response control. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: add one shared description to the fast-response, decision-model and prompt-injection-prevention catalog entries. It names the section, the company-prefixed /company/settings/connections page, the Markdown link form, and that agent credentials cannot change or test the service. For Fast response, it also names the instance experiment that hides the section. - `server/src/__tests__/company-model-service-settings-guidance.test.ts`: new regression test. It runs the agent's catalog search (including the query from the failed run) and checks that the results name the Connections page and section. It also requires every page the descriptions name to be a route that `ui/src/App.tsx` mounts, so renaming a settings route fails CI. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/company-model-service-settings-guidance.test.ts` (from `server/`): 6 tests pass. Without the catalog change, the 5 search tests fail. If the Connections route in `ui/src/App.tsx` is renamed, the route test fails. - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`: 37 tests pass. - Chat eval `companies.fast-responses` (runner-opencode), with this commit cherry-picked onto the eval branch: before the change, the reply linked the general settings page, which has no Fast response control. After the change (GitHub Actions run 42549422681), the eval passed. The reply linked the Experimental settings page and the Connections page and said to use the Fast response section there. The scripted person clicked the reply's links and found the Fast response control on the Connections page, then saved and tested it. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds catalog text only. It does not change any API or permission behavior. - If the settings page moves, these descriptions become wrong. The regression test compares every page the descriptions name with the routes in `ui/src/App.tsx`, so a route change that does not also update the description fails CI. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
43fe87795a |
fix(authz): make board-only denials final and actionable for agents (#20151)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People talk to their agents in Agent Chat, and the agents act through the Paperclip API > - Many API routes are board-only. The shared `assertBoard` check returns 403 `"Board access required"` to an agent, with no other detail > - The chat guidance also told the agent to "use permitted discovery to identify the supported operator path" after such a denial > - So the agent keeps searching the API, `call_api` and the shell for a second route. On a slow model, this search uses the whole reply window and the person gets no answer > - Earlier single-route fixes (#19990, #20041, #20008) showed the remedy: a denial that says it is final and names where the person acts. Reply time fell from 10-24 minutes to about 2 minutes > - This pull request applies that remedy once, in the shared board-only check and in the chat guidance > - The benefit is a prompt, correct handoff for every board-only action that an agent cannot do ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19990, #20008, #20041 (same remedy for single routes). **What happened** In about 30 Agent Chat evaluation cases on a slower model, the agent got 403 "Board access required" (or read `authorization.actor: "board"` in the API catalog). Then it searched for another route until the attempt deadline. Examples: archive a company, set up a managed agent profile, add a company secret. In one recorded run, the agent got the 403 at minute 1, then tried PATCH, environment variables, the CLI and UI paths for more than 3 more minutes, and never replied. **Expected behavior** A board-only denial is final. The agent stops, tells the person that a board user must do the action, links the page in the Paperclip web app where they can do it, and ends its reply. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open Agent Chat with a CEO agent. 2. Ask it to archive the company (or to add a company secret). 3. The agent calls `POST /api/companies/{id}/archive` and gets `{ "error": "Board access required" }`. 4. The body says nothing about finality or where the person acts. The agent searches for other routes and replies late or not at all. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/authz.ts`: `assertBoard` now throws `boardAccessRequired(req)`. For an agent actor, the 403 body adds `code: "board_access_required"` and a `remediation`. The remediation says the action is board-only by design, the denial is final, and no other route can do it. When the API path maps to a known board page, it links that page with a `<prefix>` placeholder: company settings, company secrets, budgets, members, tool gateways, connection settings (decision model, prompt injection prevention), an approval, or the agent profile tab that holds the control (API keys, permissions, budget, identity, harness settings). Otherwise it says to link a page only when the route is already known, and not to search for one. Board and anonymous actors get the same body as before. - `environments.ts`, `instance-settings.ts` and the issue force-release route used their own copy of the check. They now call `assertBoard`, so they return the same denial. Status and error text do not change. - `server/src/middleware/error-handler.ts`: for this code, the handler does not repeat `code` and `remediation` inside `details`. They are already top-level, and the copy only made the agent's context longer. - `AGENT_CHAT_DIRECTIVE`: the board-identity paragraph now says that a board-only operation (catalog actor `board`, or a 403 "Board access required") is final. The agent must stop searching, tell the person which control in the web app to use, and link it when it knows the route. The old instruction to "discover the operator path" is removed. - Claude Managed Agent setup: the Paperclip Runner configuration doc and the `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/managed-agent-profiles` catalog entry now say that a board operator creates and qualifies the profile (limited environment, retention acknowledgement) and that agents cannot. Before, an agent asked for an "Anthropic managed agent" explored hiring and adapter docs for its whole reply window. - Tests: new `board-access-denial.test.ts` covers the agent body for each mapped page, the agent profile tabs, the general fallback, the unmapped fast-response route, the org-access guard, the unchanged non-agent body, the guidance and the managed profile catalog entry. Two exact-body tests now also expect the new code. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts src/__tests__/browser-use-route-scope.test.ts src/__tests__/primary-agent-guidance.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-comment-cancel-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/error-handler.test.ts src/__tests__/managed-agent-profile-routes-authz.test.ts src/__tests__/companies-route-cross-company-authz.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-instance-routes.test.ts`: all pass. - Real chat journeys on the chat evaluation branch (runner-opencode, `deepseek-v4.1-flash`). Before this change, each case below got no reply before its deadline: - `companies.archive-company`: passed. Reply 47 s after the request (before: none in 270 s). The agent read the remediation and linked `/COM/company/settings`. - `companies.configure-decision-model`: passed. Reply 68 s after the request (before: none in 389 s). It linked `/COM/company/settings/connections`. - `companies.prompt-injection-guard`: reply 85 s after the request (before: none in 390 s), with the correct handoff and link. The case still fails later, in the scripted settings step: the saved model is the default, not the model the script typed. That is a separate defect. - `navigation-preferences.sidebar-order`: reply 99 s after the request (before: none in 150 s). The case still fails in its scripted sidebar step (a locator was not found). - `secrets.configure-company-secret`: reply 6.5 min after the request (before: none in 7.5 min). The reply is correct, but a grader keyword check reads "chat is not a safe place to send it" as a request for the secret. - `agents.managed-profile`: still no reply in its 150 s window. After the catalog change, the agent found the board-only profile setup within 30 s, but then spent about 90 s deciding what "Anthropic managed agent" means. ## Risks - Low risk. The HTTP status and the `error` text stay the same for every actor. Board users and anonymous callers get the same body as before. - Agent actors now get two more top-level fields (`code`, `remediation`). A client that compares the whole 403 body of an agent call exactly will see a change. Two server tests did this and are updated. - The page map uses the API path. A wrong map entry gives a less useful link but does not change authorization. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
0746d1203d |
feat(recovery): let the board confirm that an unrecorded owner stopped (#20067)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - After a restart, recovery releases an in-progress record only once its owner is proven gone, never by age > - A run lease saved before owners were stamped has no owner Paperclip can judge on an ephemeral (multi-host) server, so it stays stuck and holds its run's sandbox forever > - Only a person can tell that the previous server stopped (for example, its container was replaced) > - This pull request asks the board on the stuck task and lets an owner confirm the stop, with an activity-log entry; recovery then releases the record on its normal path > - The benefit is that legacy stuck records have a way out that never guesses ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-up to the Phase 2 durable-ownership work: #20054 (controller instance lease) and #19883 (process-space recording). It generalizes the existing "confirm the previous server stopped" action for native controllers (`native_controller_host_unverified`). No duplicate PR was found. **What happened?** On an ephemeral server, an active run lease of a finished run that was saved before holders were stamped has no owner stamp. The ownership reconciler reports it `unprovable (no_owner_stamp)` and never settles it. No operator action exists, so the lease and its sandbox stay reserved. **Expected behavior** The task shows the stuck resource, and a board owner can confirm that the previous server stopped. Recovery then releases the lease. Agents and operators without the owner-stop permission cannot. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run with `PAPERCLIP_EPHEMERAL_SERVER=true`. 2. Have an active environment lease with no `leaseController` stamp, whose run is terminal. 3. Run an ownership reconciliation pass. The lease stays `unprovable` with no action on the task. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` before this PR. ## What Changed - `packages/shared`: `confirmOwnerGoneSchema` (`actionId`, `recordId`, `stopEvidence` of 20 to 12000 characters). - `recovery/owner-gone-attestation.ts`: - `requestOwnerGoneConfirmation(kind)` is an `onUnprovable` hook. For a legacy unprovable owner (`no_owner_stamp`, `process_space_unrecorded`, `missing_identity`) on a record that has a task, it opens one idempotent board recovery action on that task (cause `ownership_owner_unprovable`). - `confirmOwnerGone(...)` verifies the exact action and record. It asks the kind to write the attestation (compare-and-swap), resolves the action, and writes an `issue.ownership_owner_gone_confirmed` activity-log entry with the actor and the stated evidence. - Ownership registry: - `OwnableKind.attestOwnerGone` is a new optional hook. - `environment_run_lease_active` implements it: only an unstamped active lease of a terminal run, with the notification for the cleanup path. - The lease's owner then reads `operator_attested`, which proves gone, so the existing settle releases it. A holder stamped since the board was asked owns the lease, and its stamp decides. - Route: `POST /api/issues/<built-in function id>/recovery-actions/confirm-owner-gone`. It uses `assertBoard` plus `runtime:confirm_owner_stop`, the same board-only permission as confirm-controller-stopped. It is registered in OpenAPI. - UI: `issuesApi.confirmOwnerGone`. The task's recovery card shows the existing `PreviousServerStopConfirmation` for this cause, with resource-specific wording; owners confirm and operators see the wait. `isPreviousServerStopCause` includes the cause, so the generic card does not offer other resolutions. ## Verification - `owner-gone-attestation.test.ts`: - the stuck lease opens one board action on the task; - confirmation resolves the action, writes the activity log, and the next pass settles the lease (`operator_attested`) exactly once; - a mismatched record is refused with 409; - a holder stamped after the ask is refused and the lease stays active; - no action for a judgeable owner or for a record with no task. - Red, with the `onUnprovable` hook removed: 2 of 3 fail. - UI: `WorkspaceExportRecovery.control.test.tsx` checks that the owner confirms with the right payload and that an operator sees the wait without the control (47/47). - Server suites: openapi-routes, ownership and recovery suites, plus the existing native-controller-host recovery. Low-memory server typecheck is clean; `check:token-gates` is clean. ## Risks - The board can attest a server stopped that is in fact running. The action and the UI copy ask for the evidence, and the activity log records who attested what. This is the same trust model as confirm-controller-stopped. - Only run leases opt in so far. Records without a task (login/probe leases) keep the legacy idle sweep. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), via Claude Code with tool use. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
e3a941372d |
fix(api): tell agents how a person connects their terminal (#20029)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People talk to agents in chat. Agents find API operations with the `search_api` tool, which reads the OpenAPI catalog. > - A person asked a chat agent to connect their terminal to Paperclip as themselves. > - The agent found the CLI auth operations, but their summaries did not say who starts the flow or which command to run. > - The agent then read source code for six minutes and did not answer in time. > - This pull request adds descriptions to the CLI auth operations. The descriptions tell the agent to give the person the `npx paperclipai auth login` command, and to not create or approve a challenge, share an agent key, or ask for a password. > - The benefit is a fast, safe answer that uses the supported browser approval flow. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** A chat agent got "Connect my terminal to Paperclip as me." It searched the API catalog and found `POST /api/cli-auth/challenges`, approve, `me` and `revoke-current`. These operations had only short summaries. The agent did not know that the person's own CLI starts the flow. It searched the repository source for the command and used its full 420-second turn without a reply. **Expected behavior** The agent tells the person to run `npx paperclipai auth login --api-base <instance URL>` in their own terminal and approve the printed link in their browser. The agent does not create or approve a challenge, share an agent key, or ask for a password. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a chat with an agent that uses the native runner. 2. Send "Connect my terminal to Paperclip as me." 3. Look at the run: the agent calls `search_api` for CLI and terminal words, finds the cli-auth operations with no usage guidance, and then reads source files. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: add descriptions to the four CLI auth operations. Give `POST /api/cli-auth/challenges` a summary that names terminal connection, so a plain request finds it. - The challenge description also tells agents that the URL is the address the person already uses in their browser. An agent must not look it up, because a runner-local API address can be unreachable from the person's machine. - `server/src/__tests__/cli-auth-terminal-guidance.test.ts`: a regression test. It runs `searchRunnerApi` with the user's words and two queries from the failed run. It checks that the challenge operation is in the top five results and that its description gives the command and the safety rules. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/cli-auth-terminal-guidance.test.ts` (in `server/`): 4 passed. On `master` without the fix, the same 4 tests fail. - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts`: 2103 passed. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server`: clean. - Chat eval `access.cli-authorization` with the first commit cherry-picked passed (run 42475844547). The agent found the guidance in its first `search_api` call and gave the correct command. It then used about four minutes to look for the instance URL. The second commit removes that search; its rerun is run 42477301708. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds text to API documentation only. Routes, permissions and responses do not change. - The new summary changes search ranking for words like "connect", "terminal" and "Paperclip". Other operations can move down by one place for those queries. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
ccce55ab11 |
fix(issues): tell callers when a task list page is capped (#19972)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents read company tasks through `GET
/api/companies/{companyId}/issues`, often through the runner `call_api`
tool
> - The route caps each page at `limit` (500 by default, 1000 at most)
and returns a bare array
> - A capped page and a complete list look the same, so an agent cannot
tell that rows are missing
> - In an eval with 501 open tasks, the agent got 500 rows and reported
498 tasks as the complete list
> - This pull request adds a "more results exist" signal and the
next-page position, and surfaces it to agents
> - The benefit is that agents page until the list is complete instead
of presenting a partial list
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
The chat eval `tasks.organize-open-work` seeds 501 open Launch tasks.
The agent called `GET /api/companies/{companyId}/issues` through
`call_api`. The route returned exactly 500 rows (the default limit) and
gave no signal that more rows existed. The agent noted that exactly 500
rows was suspicious and that some tasks were missing. It still reported
the partial list as complete.
**Expected behavior**
A capped list response tells the caller that more results exist and how
to get the next page. The agent-facing tool result shows the same signal
next to the data.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create 501 tasks with status `todo` in one company.
2. Call `GET /api/companies/{companyId}/issues?status=todo`.
3. See that the response has 500 rows and no header or field that says
more rows exist.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: the company issue list fetches one row
past the page. It then sets `X-Paperclip-Has-More` (`true`/`false`) and
`X-Paperclip-Limit` on every page. A capped page also sets
`X-Paperclip-Next-Offset`, and `X-Paperclip-Next-After-Id` for
`sortField=id&sortDir=asc` cursor paging. Pagination is reported only to
actors who can read the whole company's task list; actors whose rows are
filtered after the query (such as low-trust agents) get no pagination
headers, so the raw page cannot reveal tasks they cannot read.
`oneChildPerParent` lists are ordered by parent first, so they page by
offset and never advertise an id cursor. The body is unchanged (still an
array). The Mine inbox path does not change.
- `server/src/services/native-runtime/runner-api-client.ts`: `call_api`
results for successful responses that carry these headers include
`pagination: { hasMore, truncated, limit, nextOffset, nextAfterId?,
guidance? }`. The guidance tells the agent to repeat the call with the
next `offset`/`afterId` until `hasMore` is false. The field is also
present when the body is saved as an artifact. Routes without the
headers get no new field.
- `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: the API catalog entry documents
`limit`, `offset`, `sortField`, `sortDir`, `afterId`, the headers and
the `call_api` pagination field.
- Tests for capped, cursor, last, exact-size and default-limit (501
rows) pages in all list projections, for offset-only paging of
`oneChildPerParent` lists, for a low-trust agent receiving no pagination
headers, and for the `call_api` pagination field.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/issues-list-query-parsing.test.ts
src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` — 31 passed.
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/issues-list-query-parsing.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` — passes. Without the
source change, 8 of the new tests fail.
- `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/inbox-mine-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-list-updatedsince-filter-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api*` — 2237 passed, 2 skipped.
- `tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` shows no errors in the changed
files.
## Risks
- Low risk. The response body shape does not change. Existing clients
ignore the new headers.
- Each list query reads one more row. The extra row is enriched and then
dropped. The cost is small.
- `call_api` results gain an optional `pagination` field. Consumers that
do not know the field ignore it.
- Agents whose task reads are filtered after the query (low-trust
agents) still get no truncation signal, as before; a raw-page signal
would leak hidden tasks. Pushing their boundary into the list query
would let them have one later.
- Other capped list routes do not set the headers yet. They can adopt
the same headers later.
> 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
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), used through Claude
Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs).
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
81f12c21ec |
fix(server): document the safe company import request body in the API catalog (#19968)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A CEO agent can preview and apply a company package import through
`POST /api/companies/{companyId}/imports/preview` and `/imports/apply`
> - Agents find API operations and their request bodies in the OpenAPI
catalog
> - The catalog entries for these two safe import routes have no request
body and no description of the safe-route limits
> - An agent then offered the person a `replace` choice that the safe
route rejects
> - This pull request registers the existing preview and import body
schemas and describes the limits
> - The benefit is that agents can resolve name conflicts with `rename`,
`skip` and `nameOverrides`, and do not offer choices that fail
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
A person attached a company package in chat and asked a CEO agent what
the package would add. The package had an agent named Morgan, and the
company already had a Morgan. The agent previewed the import correctly.
It then offered three choices: `skip`, `rename`, or `replace`
("overwrites the existing Morgan"). The safe import route rejects
`replace`. The catalog entries for `/imports/preview` and
`/imports/apply` have no request body, so the agent could not see the
route's fields or limits. PR #19945 fixed the same gap for `/exports`.
**Expected behavior**
The catalog documents the import body, including `source`, `target`,
`collisionStrategy` and `nameOverrides`. It states that the safe route
rejects `replace` and never overwrites an existing agent.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Read `GET /api/openapi.json`,
`paths["/api/companies/{companyId}/imports/preview"].post`.
2. See that it has no `requestBody`. The legacy
`/api/companies/import/preview` entry has one.
3. Call the safe route with `collisionStrategy: "replace"`. It returns
403.
## What Changed
- Register `companyPortabilityPreviewSchema` and
`companyPortabilityImportSchema` as the JSON request bodies of `POST
/api/companies/{companyId}/imports/preview` and `/imports/apply` in
`server/src/routes/openapi.ts`.
- Add a description of the safe-route limits: target, allowed collision
strategies, and `nameOverrides`.
- Add a regression test in
`server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`.
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` passes (37 tests). The new test
fails on master because the entries have no `requestBody`.
- An end-to-end check runs the `companies.import-preview` chat eval with
this commit cherry-picked onto the eval branch.
## Risks
- Low risk. This changes only API documentation. The routes already
parse these schemas. Runtime behavior does not change.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
779913333a |
fix(documents): say whether an exact revision read is still current (#19939)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Task documents keep a revision history, and agents read and restore
revisions through the API
> - The exact-revision read returns one revision, but it does not say if
that revision is still current
> - An agent read the revision that it restored earlier by its ID and
reported it as "latest", but another person had saved a newer edit
> - This pull request adds the document's current revision to the
exact-revision read
> - The benefit is that a pinned read cannot pass as a read of the
current document
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
In a chat eval, the agent restored a plan revision. Then another person
saved a new revision. The user asked the agent to read the current plan.
The agent called `GET
/api/issues/{id}/documents/plan/revisions/{revisionId}` with the ID of
its own restored revision. The response did not show that a newer
revision existed. The agent reported the old revision as the latest and
said that the read confirmed this.
**Expected behavior**
A read of one exact revision must show if that revision is still
current, and which revision is current. Then the reader can see a newer
edit and read the current document.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Save two revisions of a task plan.
2. Call `GET
/api/issues/{id}/documents/plan/revisions/{firstRevisionId}`.
3. See that the response gives no sign that revision 2 is the current
revision.
## What Changed
- `getIssueDocumentRevision` now also returns `latestRevisionId`,
`latestRevisionNumber` and `isLatest`.
- Shared type `ExactDocumentRevision` describes this response. The UI
client uses it.
- The OpenAPI description of the exact-revision read names these fields
and points to `GET /api/issues/{id}/documents/{key}` for the current
text.
- The service test checks `isLatest` for an older and a current
revision.
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` (42 passed).
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p packages/shared` passes.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only adds fields to a read response. No caller
removes or renames a field. No migration.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code
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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
468f22ae4b |
fix(server): document the company export request body in the API catalog (#19945)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A CEO agent can export the company setup through `POST
/api/companies/{companyId}/exports`
> - Agents find API operations and their request bodies in the OpenAPI
catalog
> - The catalog entries for `/exports` and `/exports/preview` have no
request body
> - The export defaults include only the company and agents, so an agent
that sends no body gets a package without projects or skills
> - This pull request registers the existing export body schema on both
entries and describes the `include` defaults
> - The benefit is that agents can request a complete reusable setup and
do not tell users that resources do not exist
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
A user asked a CEO agent in chat: "Export this company's setup so I can
reuse it." The company had an agent, a project, and a company skill. The
agent looked up `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/exports` in the API
catalog. Its reasoning said that the operation "has no request body
defined". It sent no body. The package had only the company and the
agent. The agent then told the user that the company had "no projects,
issues, or company skills, so nothing else was left out." That statement
was false.
**Expected behavior**
The catalog documents the export body, including `include.projects` and
`include.skills`. An agent can request a full setup export. The legacy
`/export` route already documents this body.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a company with a project and a company skill.
2. Read `GET /api/openapi.json`,
`paths["/api/companies/{companyId}/exports"].post`.
3. See that it has no `requestBody`. The legacy `/export` entry has one.
4. Call `POST /exports` with no body. The package has no projects or
skills.
## What Changed
- Register `companyPortabilityExportSchema` as the request body of `POST
/api/companies/{companyId}/exports` and `/exports/preview` in
`server/src/routes/openapi.ts`.
- Add a description that states the `include` defaults and tells callers
to set `include.projects` and `include.skills` for a reusable setup.
- Add a regression test in
`server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`.
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` passes (36 tests). The new test
fails on master because the entries have no `requestBody`.
- An end-to-end check runs the `companies.export-company` chat eval with
this commit cherry-picked onto the eval branch.
## Risks
- Low risk. This changes only API documentation. The routes already
parse this schema. Runtime behavior does not change.
- `imports/preview` and `imports/apply` also register no body. This PR
does not change them.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
adb7633d7b |
fix(status-cards): give agents the person's restore route when archiving a card (#19903)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Status cards are saved summaries of company work. People and agents
can archive and restore them.
> - A person asked a chat agent to archive a card "to reuse it next
quarter". The agent archived it correctly.
> - The archive response had no board route, and the PATCH operation had
no description. The completion guidance tells agents not to guess
routes.
> - So the agent told the person to restore the card "by clearing
`archived`". That is an API instruction, not a route a person can use.
> - This pull request gives single-card responses an `href` to the
Status page and documents archive and restore on the PATCH operation.
> - The benefit is that an agent can give the person a usable link and a
true account of restore, which starts a fresh summary.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
A chat agent archived a status card. Its reply told the person to
restore the card by clearing `archived` on the card. It gave no link to
the place where a person restores it.
**Expected behavior**
The reply links the card on the Status page, where a person can show
archived cards and click Restore. It also says that restore starts a
fresh summary.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable status cards and create a card as an agent.
2. Ask the CEO agent in chat to archive the card for later reuse.
3. Read the reply. It has no usable restore route, because `PATCH
/api/status-cards/{id}` returns no `href` and has no description.
## What Changed
- `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/status-cards`, `GET
/api/status-cards/{id}` and `PATCH /api/status-cards/{id}` now return
`href`, the company-scoped Status page route for the card.
- The shared `statusCardSchema` has an optional `href` field.
- The `PATCH /api/status-cards/{id}` OpenAPI operation has a
description. It says that archive keeps the card and its history, that a
person restores it on the Status page with the returned `href`, and that
restore starts a fresh full summary.
- The create route reads the company issue prefix before it creates the
card. A failed link lookup can not delete a card whose compile task is
queued.
- Regression tests cover the `href` on the archive and get responses,
the new PATCH description, and a failed prefix read on create (no card
and no task are left).
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/status-cards.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` (71 tests pass). The new
create-route test fails on the first commit and passes on the fix.
- End to end: the chat eval `status-cards.archive-card` runs with this
change on an eval branch. The result is in the eval report for that
case.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change adds one optional response field and one
description. List responses do not change. The UI ignores the new field.
- Each single-card response does one more small company read for the
issue prefix. On create, this read occurs before the card exists, so its
failure leaves nothing behind.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), used in Claude Code
with tool use and code 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
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
f439150cb3 |
fix(recovery): limit the null-host owner fallback to single-host servers and record each use (#19883)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - #19868 and #19871 made restart recovery judge a recorded pid only in the PID space that recorded it > - Rows saved before those host columns existed have no recorded host. They kept the previous local dead-pid proof, so in-flight native runs would not be stranded at upgrade > - On an ephemeral (multi-host) server that fallback is unsafe: the row may have been written on another host > - This pull request limits the fallback to single-host servers, records every use, and gives ephemeral servers a working board action > - The benefit is that single-host upgrades still recover on their own, multi-host servers never accept a cross-host proof, and the next release can remove the fallback with evidence ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Bug description** After #19868 and #19871, a `native_run_finalizations` row with `controller_host_hash = null`, or a run with `process_host_hash = null`, still accepted "the pid is dead here" as proof on every server. That includes an ephemeral server, where the row may come from another host. Nothing recorded how often the fallback was used, so it had no safe removal path. **Expected behavior** - Single-host server: the fallback applies for one release, and each use writes a `legacy_host_unknown_dead_pid_proof` activity-log entry. - Ephemeral server (`PAPERCLIP_EPHEMERAL_SERVER=true`): the row is unprovable, and the board has an action to confirm the previous server stopped. - A mismatched host is always unprovable. Refs #19868, #19871, #19846 ## What Changed - `native-restart-recovery.ts` `evaluateNativeControllerTakeover`: - A coordinator row with `controllerHostHash: null` returns `controller_host_unrecorded` when `ephemeralServerEnabled()` is true. - Otherwise a pid proof from that row carries `legacyHostFallback: true`. - `operator_attested` is accepted as proof (`operator_attested_controller_stopped`). - Receipt-built owners, which have no host key, are unchanged. - New `recordLegacyHostFallbackProof` writes the activity-log entry. It is not a run-log event: run events are progress evidence for restart recovery's crash-loop credit, and the record must not change any recovery decision. It is called from restart recovery, the dead-controller result-lease release, native retirement, and remote warm-session recovery. - New `native-controller-host-recovery.ts`: - `requestNativeControllerStopConfirmation` (board-owned `native_controller_host_unverified` recovery action, idempotent, never displaces another active action). - `confirmNativeControllerStopped`. It verifies the exact recorded controller and stamps `operator_attested` with compare-and-set. It then resolves the action, wakes live-run recovery, and logs `issue.native_controller_stop_confirmed`. - Route `POST /issues/:id/recovery-actions/confirm-controller-stopped`. It is board-only and requires `runtime:confirm_owner_stop`. Generic `restored`/`false_positive` resolution of this cause is refused. A shared `confirmNativeControllerStoppedSchema` validates the body. - UI: `WorkspaceExportRecovery` reuses the "Confirm the previous server stopped" control for this cause, and the generic recovery card hides it. Adds the `issuesApi.confirmControllerStopped` client call. - `recovery/service.ts` orphan reaper: a null `process_host_hash` is judged only when not ephemeral. A successful use records the entry best-effort, after the terminal write. On an ephemeral server the run is left to its existing Stop control. - `ephemeralServerEnabled` moves to a leaf `ephemeral-server-mode.ts` (re-exported by `ephemeral-server-contract.ts`). Importing the contract module from recovery code created an import cycle in the runner child process. - The new route is registered in OpenAPI. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: documents the host rule and the one-release sunset. ## Verification - `native-restart-recovery.test.ts`: null host on a single-host server is released with the flag. Null host on an ephemeral server is unprovable. A mismatched host is unprovable in both modes. An attested controller is accepted. Receipt owners are unchanged. - New `native-controller-host-recovery.test.ts` (embedded Postgres): - The fallback writes the activity-log entry and no run event. - Ephemeral mode creates exactly one board action. - A wrong run id is refused. - Confirmation stamps the attestation, after which takeover is allowed. The action resolves and the activity is logged. A second confirmation is refused. - `recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep.test.ts`: on a single-host server a null host is terminalized and records one event. On an ephemeral server it is left alone with no event. The existing audit-failure case still clears the lock. - `WorkspaceExportRecovery.control.test.tsx`: the controller confirmation posts to `confirmControllerStopped` and never to the copyback endpoint. - Locally: these suites plus `remote-warm-session-recovery`, `native-controller-recovery.integration` and `native-startup-cleanup-recovery` (136 passed), and after the CI fixes `native-runner-restart-preparation` and `native-runner-restart-recovery` integration, `openapi-routes` and the suites above (256 passed); the UI recovery suites (52 passed); `node scripts/typecheck-layers.mjs` with no errors in the touched files; `pnpm check:token-gates` clean. ## Risks - Previous-release story: no schema change. Null-host rows saved by earlier releases recover as before on single-host servers, now with an event, and wait for the board on ephemeral servers. The next release removes the fallback; the event count shows whether any rows remain. - On an ephemeral server, a null-host orphaned run process is not reaped automatically. The operator uses Stop. That is the intended "unprovable" outcome. - A board confirmation is an attestation. It applies only to the exact recorded controller (boot id + pid) and only while the host is still unrecorded. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
00ad9503fe |
feat(commentary): agents read only their own commentary unless granted commentary:view (#19842)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents can submit complaints and suggestions as commentary, and
people with commentary access read them on the Commentary page
> - When a person asks an agent in chat what agents have been
complaining about, the agent cannot read commentary and gets "Board
access required"
> - That response does not say where a person can see it, so the agent
can name the feed but cannot link it
> - Product rule: an agent cannot read other agents' commentary unless
it holds `commentary:view`, which is off by default; it may read its own
> - This pull request implements that rule and adds a remediation to the
denial naming the human page for the agent's own company
> - The benefit is a clear permission boundary and a working link for
the person instead of a dead end
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
In the `activity.agent-feedback` chat eval, the agent correctly said it
could not read agent commentary and that only the person could open it,
but it gave no link, because the denial named no page.
**Expected behavior**
An agent denied a commentary read learns which page a person with
commentary access can open.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. As an agent, call `GET /api/companies/{companyId}/agent-commentary`.
2. Before this change, the 403 body is only `{ "error": "Board access
required" }`.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/agent-commentary.ts`:
- An agent with the `commentary:view` grant reads all commentary its
task access allows. The grant is not among the default agent grants.
- Without the grant, an agent may read its own entries: `?agentId=<its
own id>` on the list, or its own entry by ID.
- Without the grant, listing all commentary, filtering by another agent,
or reading another agent's entry returns 403 "Board access required".
The response's `remediation` names `/<issuePrefix>/activity/commentary`
for the agent's own company.
- A request for another company still fails on company access first,
with no page path.
- Board reads are unchanged: `commentary:view` for the user, plus task
read conditions.
- `agent-commentary.integration.test.ts`: one test covers the full-list
and other-agent denials with the page path, own-list and own-entry
reads, the cross-company denial, the grant allowing a full list, and
that `commentary:view` is not a default agent grant.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-commentary.integration.test.ts` in
`server`: 21 tests passed.
- The new test fails against the previous route.
- Negative control: with the previous route, the new test fails.
- Related commentary tests: `agent-commentary-reader`,
`agent-commentary-helper`, `commentary-permission-migration` passed.
`agent-commentary-skills` fails the same way with and without this
change (a missing skill file in a temporary directory locally).
- The chat eval rerun with this change is recorded in #19614.
## Risks
- Agents can now read their own commentary when they ask for it
explicitly; before, every agent read was denied.
- The denial's status code and message are unchanged; a `remediation`
string is added for same-company agents.
- There is no UI yet for granting `commentary:view` to an agent.
- An agent learns the company's issue prefix, which it already sees in
task identifiers.
> 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
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, with tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
|
18be7ac696 |
fix(server): retire idle native sessions before tenant sleep (#18988)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work. > - Native agents can retain a warm session between useful turns. > - That owner must close and save its files before the tenant can sleep. > - A failed close must keep the owner visible until retirement succeeds. > - This PR prepares idle resources under the exact current admission hold, then takes a fresh safety snapshot. > - Busy turns, uncertain closure and changed holds still prevent sleep. > - CI also exposed a chat authorization race. The fix repeats full authorization after the exact delivery commits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18639 for local work and incoming wake boundaries. Related #18829 covers suspension receipts after admission. **What happened?** Idle preflight did not retire warm Native owners. Three failed-close paths could forget an owner without proving that its provider stopped. CI also found a false chat rejection when a delivery changed from processing to processed between two validation reads. **Expected behavior** Retire only idle owners under the exact bounded hold. Wait for closure and file collection. Retain failed owners. Scan safety after preparation. Keep diagnostic reads passive. A newly committed chat delivery must pass the full current authorization checks before attestation succeeds. **Steps to reproduce** Finish a warm Native turn. Start an idle drain and request safety with its owner ID. Delay or reject provider closure, or replace the hold during preparation or scanning. The report must keep the instance awake. For the chat race, commit the exact delivery between the first binding read and its fallback read. **Paperclip version or commit** Current head `7f6f02b611dcf5a9a2b05173a44e9631eaf78058` normally integrates actual master `1aa0c3639714f4976cfa56f95aae6e2b7d1235ac`. The merge preserves every unrelated master path. Fresh exact-head CI and complete review remain required. ## What Changed - Retain uncertain Native owners after failed restart, idle timeout and failed-turn closure. - Prepare Native retirement through the existing heartbeat facade. Reuse provider closure and stopped-file collection. - Track preparation under the exact idle owner and expiry. Reject new activity, changed holds and expired holds before and after awaited work. - Take the final durable and local safety snapshot after preparation. Keep diagnostic inspection passive. - Cover ephemeral workspace retirement and useful next use, supported plugin drain and SDK persistence, busy owners, failed closure and hold replacement. - Keep dedicated recovery storage explicit. Use the same validated options for support and storage. Probe-free helpers retain the original implementation bodies and preserve default callers. - Complete the Native fixture through real retirement and budget evaluation. Keep its rejection, file, credential, accounting and strict NONE assertions. - Repeat the complete chat authorization once if the fallback sees the exact batch now processed. Preserve owner locks, principal and binding checks, denial handling and the original retry deadline. ## Verification - The support-mode regression reproduces one failure with four passes under the old policy, then passes all five controls. It retains prior allocation and cleanup cases. The explicit mode does not probe embedded PostgreSQL or use an admin alias. - The deterministic chat race baseline reproduces two authorized failures with all four current-authority denial controls passing. Both Slack and Discord use real PostgreSQL and the real authorization function. The negative setup commits before the attestation transaction; it does not claim to revoke access through a row lock. - The product fix passes normal own App declaration emission with no public declaration changes, plus both current normal owning compiler programs (399 and 611 roots). The same six controls pass after the fix. The full original file plus these controls passes all 30 tests with no skips. - The original controlled Native continuation passes: one test, no failures or skips, 1.718 seconds in its body and 23.138 seconds in its launcher. The original 40-second case and 180-second outer bounds are unchanged. It verifies held closure, strict NONE, an ordinary authorized comment, saved session/files, useful output, encrypted credentials, accepted results and settled accounting. All ten observed processes and groups close; worker connections and listeners reach zero. A separate post-owner audit finds zero sessions; the successful owned database is normally removed. - Earlier preparation, HTTP, lifecycle, workspace and plugin controls remain source-specific evidence. They are not a claim that every final-tree test ran locally. - The original CI assertion log is retained. The controlled race proves a possible cause; the original CI SQL schedule was not captured. Two other jobs lost their self-hosted runners and provided no test verdict. Earlier asset timeouts, readiness failures and unexplained later recovery remain separately recorded. No timeout, failure predicate or authority check was weakened. Focused public commands: ```sh pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/idle-sleep-preparation.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts --maxWorkers=1 --no-file-parallelism pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-reviewed-chat-binding.integration.test.ts --maxWorkers=1 --no-file-parallelism ``` Local database qualification uses fresh owned test databases on existing PostgreSQL, bounded pools and one worker. The local allocation adapter changes only database allocation for this test module; it runs normal migrations and client cleanup. It is not part of the published source. No new cluster is created. Local acceptance measured the `0a69efa6` integration with the same committed authorization bytes. The later normal master merge adds startup-timeout classification and recovery changes. Those paths are outside the controlled healthy-backend witness; retirement and authorization hunks are preserved. Exact-head remote CI at `7f6f02b611dcf5a9a2b05173a44e9631eaf78058` has completed with 56 successful contexts and four skips. The complete current Greptile summary is5/5 with no new actionable findings; all review threads are resolved. Ponytail’s current turn is explicitly paused without a current-head verdict; earlier actual findings are fixed and accounted for. No whole final-tree local repository build/test run, live-provider restore or deployed suspension is claimed. Actual master subsequently advanced to `d5c4f7dd02d408a261cedd9a1926b9900a4aedc4`. Its local normal-merge projection with this reviewed head preserves all20 owned paths and every unrelated master blob and mode. Current Runner TypeScript, App declarations and their full owning compiler programs pass. Focused Native cleanup and warm-continuation composition checks are being completed before merge; the new upstream suspension-retry behavior is not inferred from the older controlled-backend witness. The remote PR head remains unchanged. ## Risks - Privileged idle preparation can close idle warm Native sessions. It requires the exact current hold. - Failed closure retains its owner and can keep the tenant awake until normal retry succeeds. - A changed hold cannot authorize sleep. Started cleanup remains tracked until it settles. - The chat repair can perform one extra full authorization read. It keeps the existing deadline and does not grant authority from the fallback query. - Unsupported resources and active work retain their existing blockers. This PR does not certify every transport, plugin or deployed host. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` produced the delegated changes and verification. OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, performed managing review and integration. Both used repository tools and code execution. The coordinator's exact backend snapshot and context-window limits were not exposed. ## 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 at exact head `7f6f02b611dcf5a9a2b05173a44e9631eaf78058` - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups at the exact current head - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Codex <noreply@openai.com> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
e1332b997f |
fix(plugins): align tool run context and interaction input types (#19493)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Plugins add tools and issue-thread interactions through `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` > - The SDK types are the public contract between the host and plugin authors > - Two parts of that contract do not match what the host does at runtime > - First, `ToolRunContext.projectId` says it is always a project UUID. The tool gateway sends an empty string when a run has no project. The direct tool route rejects such runs with 400 > - Second, three interaction helpers ask for the parsed output type, so plugin authors must pass fields that the host fills in with defaults > - This pull request makes the types and both tool paths agree with the runtime > - The benefit is that agents with no project can run plugin tools, and plugin authors can omit the fields that have defaults ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #3273 Related: #3274 removes the `projectId` requirement from the route. That change alone is not enough today: the route now also looks up the project to check its company, and that lookup needs a value. This pull request also skips that lookup when the run has no project. It gives plugins one value for "no project" on both tool paths. The new test typecheck in #18739 and #18839 also listed both problems as possible product problems. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/plugins.ts`: `POST /api/plugins/tools/execute` accepts a `runContext.projectId` that is missing, `null`, or an empty string. It passes an empty string to the plugin, the same value that the tool gateway sends. It checks the project's company only when a project ID is present. A `projectId` that is not a string returns 400. - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: the request schema marks `runContext.projectId` as optional and nullable. - `packages/plugins/sdk/src/types.ts`: - The `ToolRunContext.projectId` comment says the value is an empty string when the run has no project. - `suggestTasks`, `requestConfirmation` and `requestCheckboxConfirmation` take `CreateIssueThreadInteractionInput`, as `askUserQuestions` already does. The host parses this input with the schema, so the defaults apply. - `packages/plugins/examples/plugin-kitchen-sink-example/src/worker.ts`: the example passes `undefined` instead of an empty project ID to `issues.create`. - `doc/plugins/PLUGIN_SPEC.md` (section 13.10): documents the empty project ID. - Tests: - `server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts`: tests a run with an empty, missing, or `null` project ID, which skips the project lookup. Also tests that a project ID that is not a string returns 400. - `packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts`: removes the cast that the output type required. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts`: 3 files, 81 tests pass. - `cd server && pnpm typecheck`: passes. This includes the source layers and the three test-tree shards. - `tsc --noEmit` passes for `packages/plugins/sdk` (`tsconfig.json` and `tsconfig.test.json`) and for the kitchen-sink example. - Not run locally: the full `pnpm test:run` and the root `pnpm build`. Required CI covers them. ## Risks - Low risk. The direct tool route now accepts calls that it rejected before. It still checks that the agent and the run belong to the company. With no project ID, there is no project to check. - A plugin that reads `runCtx.projectId` can get an empty string on both tool paths. The tool gateway already sent this value before this change. Only the documentation is new. - The SDK parameter types are wider. Existing plugin code still compiles. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) in Claude Code, with tool use (shell, file edits) and extended thinking. ## 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
6ca7b151f7 |
feat: compact an agent's context from the task Properties panel (#19378)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A task's Properties panel shows the assignee agent's context window
(paperclipai/paperclip#19273)
> - The board can see that the context is nearly full, but it cannot act
on it
> - A full context makes the agent compact at an unplanned time, often
in the middle of work
> - This pull request adds "Compact now" to the Context hover card
> - The benefit is that the board can compact the agent's context
between runs, at a time it chooses
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs paperclipai/paperclip#19273
**Problem**
The Context row shows how full the agent's context window is. The board
cannot ask the agent to compact it.
**Proposed solution**
A "Compact now" button in the Context hover card. It runs the harness's
own compaction: Codex `thread/compact/start`, and Claude's `/compact`
command through ACP.
**Alternatives considered**
A separate PRP `session.compact` command. Both harnesses run compaction
as a turn, so a compaction turn keeps the existing durable turn binding,
interruption, and recovery. A separate command needs a second turn
lifecycle.
## What Changed
- UI: the Context hover card shows Compact now with three states:
available, Compacting…, and unavailable with a reason (agent mid-run,
harness unsupported, task closed). The Storybook story shows each state.
- Server: `POST /api/issues/:id/context/compact` (board only,
`decideIssueAccess` `issue:mutate`, activity log
`issue.context_compaction_requested`). It queues a short run marked by
`contextSnapshot.contextCompactionRequestId`. `GET
/issues/:id/context-usage` returns the `compaction` state.
- Server: a compaction run does no task work. The native status arbiter
preserves the task status. The lifecycle skips handoff, liveness
continuation, review-path disposition and the issue comment, as it does
for goal-control runs.
- Runner TS: `startTurn({ compact: true })`. The Codex harness session
sends `thread/compact/start`. The runnerd transport maps it to PRP
`turn.start` with `compact: true` (Codex) or `text: "/compact"`
(Claude/ACPX). The native runtime option `sessionCompaction` requires a
resumed session and settles with a synthesized yielded result.
- Runner Rust: `turn.start` accepts `compact: true` for Codex.
`CodexProvider::start_compaction_turn` sends `thread/compact/start` and
binds the turn from the `turn/started` that follows the empty response.
- Fix (from #19273): Codex emitted `context.compacted` on both the start
and the end of one compaction item. It now emits it once, and the count
is distinct by `compactionId`.
- Fix (from #19273): the conversation event view dropped
`context.compacted`, so a finished run never showed the divider. The
view now keeps compactions, plus context readings for runs that
compacted. A finished run's compactions show as thread dividers.
- Fix: the Codex harness stamps before/after sizes on the compaction
event. Codex reports the compacted size before the compaction item ends,
so the old neighbour-based guess showed the wrong size.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, `node
scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs`: pass.
- New tests: `server/src/__tests__/context-compaction.test.ts`,
`status-arbiter.test.ts`, `issue-context-usage.test.ts` (duplicate
compaction counts once), `ui/.../context-usage-row.test.tsx`,
`native-session-runtime.test.ts` (context compaction), Codex driver and
runnerd transport tests, Rust
`codex_compaction_turn_binds_the_turn_reported_after_its_empty_response`.
Rust `codex_provider` suite: 115 passed.
- `pnpm test:run` locally: one failure in
`chat-channels.integration.test.ts`. It reads
`.claude/skills/slack/SKILL.md` from the main checkout, which is not
present in this worktree. It is not related to this change.
- Live, local worktree instance, Codex agent on the Paperclip runner:
clicked Compact now. The run succeeded. Context went from 35k to 9.4k
tokens, and later 9.4k to 9.2k. The task stayed In Review. The thread
shows "Context compacted · 9.4k → 9.2k tokens" and the meter dropped.
- Live Claude proof: pending. The local Claude agent needs an Anthropic
API key. claude-agent-acp handles `/compact` as an echo-less turn, and
the runner already maps its "Compacting completed." notice to
`context.compacted`.
## Risks
- A compaction run resumes the agent's session. If the session cannot
resume, the run fails with `native_context_compaction_unavailable` and
the task is unchanged.
- Compact now is not available while the agent runs on the task, because
compaction interrupts the active turn.
- The conversation view now returns context readings for runs that
compacted. Runs that never compacted return the same events as before.
- An old runner binary ignores `compact` and rejects the `turn.start`
because it has no text. It does not start an ordinary turn.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, through Claude Code
with tool use and code 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
8f79a32898 |
fix(connections): keep agent access consistent through setup and permission changes (#19352)
Task-hosted tool setup kept requester-only defaults, and audience edits could leave runtime installations restricted after permission bindings were widened. Large provider catalogs could also fail before creating an access card. Use the normal agent audience defaults for new tool setup, preserve explicit selections through verified OAuth and draft resumption, and synchronize permission bindings and runtime installations atomically. Enforce agent-edit authority and preserve existing access during additive account reuse. Validation: 915 focused regression tests, typechecks, and builds passed. All 54 CI checks passed and Greptile Apex scored the reviewed head 5/5 with no unresolved threads. Broad local test failures, recoveries, and incomplete heartbeat coverage are documented in the PR. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |