3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
3 people	3ae2c30f2f	feat(skills): import skills from projects (#9620) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Company skills make reusable agent behavior discoverable and editable from one place. > - Projects already contain skill directories, but operators had to import each skill path manually. > - Copying those skills would break the desired write-through workflow between Skill Studio and the source project. > - The server therefore needs a safe preview/select/import contract that only accepts rediscovered, workspace-contained candidates. > - The UI needs a guided project picker that explains reference semantics, handles conflicts, and remains usable on mobile. > - This pull request adds that end-to-end project skill import flow with authorization, tenant-scope, traversal, and symlink regression coverage. > - The benefit is faster bulk onboarding while keeping project files as the single source of truth. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Feature request** **Problem:** Importing several skills already stored in a Paperclip project requires operators to discover and submit each local path individually. This is slow, hides which well-known directories were searched, and makes conflict/already-imported states difficult to evaluate before mutation. **Proposed solution:** Add an “Import skills from project” flow that previews skills from well-known directories, lets operators selectively import eligible candidates, and stores local-path references so Skill Studio edits write through to the project files. **Alternatives considered:** Copying files into company-managed skill storage was rejected because it creates divergent copies. Trusting client-supplied paths was rejected because imports must be constrained to server-rediscovered, workspace-contained candidates. **Additional context:** GitHub duplicate search found no existing issue or PR for this exact workflow. Refs #3799 for related skill-import inventory behavior; this PR does not claim to close that issue. ## What Changed - Extend `scan-projects` with backward-compatible preview and selective-import modes, typed validation, candidate statuses, and OpenAPI coverage. - Discover project skills under `skills`, `.agents/skills`, `.claude/skills`, `.codex/skills`, `.cursor/skills`, `.opencode/skills`, and `.gemini/skills`. - Re-discover selections server-side, enforce company/project/workspace scope, and reject traversal or symlink escapes before creating `local_path` references. - Add the Skills-page menu entry and responsive project import dialog with project selection, grouped candidates, select all/deselect all, conflicts, empty/error/403 states, and import results. - Add route, service, and component regressions for preview authorization, cross-tenant selections, traversal/symlink safety, selection counts, grouping, and result semantics. ### Screenshots **Choose a project**  **Review discovered skills**  **Mobile selection footer**  **Import result**  ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/skills/ImportSkillsFromProjectDialog.test.tsx` — 3 files, 81 tests passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all token gates clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Security review passed after adding tenant-scope and unauthorized-preview regressions; UX re-review approved desktop/mobile surfaces; QA passed all seven acceptance areas including write-through editing, deduplication, conflicts, empty state, and permission denial. ## Risks - Files remain referenced in project workspaces, so moving or deleting a source directory can make an imported skill unavailable; the UI explicitly communicates the reference behavior. - New well-known directory scans may discover more candidates than older versions, but preview mode prevents mutation until the operator confirms a selection. - The endpoint remains backward compatible: omitting `mode` preserves the prior full-import behavior. - No schema migration or telemetry event changes. > 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 4.8 with tool use/code execution assisted with the UI implementation and UX polish. OpenAI Codex CLI with tool use/code execution assisted with server implementation, security fixes, regression coverage, integration, and PR preparation; the runtime did not expose Codex's exact backing model ID or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-15 18:01:44 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	7947308276	fix(codex): classify refresh auth failures (#9598) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip supports the Codex local adapter, which runs OpenAI Codex CLI sessions on behalf of agents > - Codex uses OAuth refresh tokens to maintain long-running authenticated sessions > - When a refresh fails, the failure has distinct root causes: a refresh token was already reused in a parallel request, the token expired by TTL, or the token was invalidated/revoked by the provider > - Without classifying these failure modes, all refresh auth errors surface identically — operators cannot distinguish retryable transient collisions from permanent invalidations, and run logs carry no actionable diagnosis > - This pull request adds structured classification (`refresh_token_reused`, `refresh_token_expired`, `refresh_token_invalidated`) of Codex refresh-token auth failures across the CLI quota-probe, ACP auth path, and execute path > - The benefit is that these distinct failure modes can be surfaced in run logs and acted on appropriately — transient reuse can be retried; true invalidations require re-auth ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- Path B: no public GitHub issue — describing inline as a bug fix --> **What happened:** When the Codex local adapter encounters a refresh-token auth failure, it emits a generic error with no structured classification. All three failure kinds (`reused`, `expired`, `invalidated/revoked`) reach the same unclassified code path. **Expected behavior:** Each failure kind is classified and exposed as a typed field (`refresh_token_reused` | `refresh_token_expired` | `refresh_token_invalidated`) so callers can log, retry, and surface them appropriately. **Steps to reproduce:** 1. Run a Codex agent session with a reused or expired OAuth refresh token. 2. Observe that the run log carries no structured failure classification — only a raw error string. **Related PRs:** Refs #9247 (prior broader PR that included credential telemetry; this PR carries only the narrowed classification scope) ## What Changed - Added `CodexAuthRefreshFailureClass` type union (`refresh_token_reused | refresh_token_expired | refresh_token_invalidated`) to `packages/adapter-utils/src/types.ts` - Added `classifyCodexAuthRefreshFailure()` to `packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/parse.ts` with five regex patterns covering provider-specific error strings and contextual 401/invalid_grant patterns - Wired the classifier into the ACP auth path (`server/acp.ts`), execute path (`server/execute.ts`), and CLI quota-probe (`cli/quota-probe.ts`) - Added `quota_refresh_token_reused`, `quota_refresh_token_expired`, `quota_refresh_token_invalidated` variants to `packages/shared/src/types/quota.ts` - Added classification unit tests (`parse.test.ts`, `quota-spawn-error.test.ts`, `acp.test.ts`) and a server-side integration test (`server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts`) - Fixed cross-company tool-access resource visibility in `server/src/routes/tool-access.ts` - Stabilized `heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts` (CASCADE cleanup), `heartbeat-run-log.test.ts`, and `quota-windows.test.ts` ## Verification - `pnpm turbo test --filter="@paperclip/codex-local"` — parse classification tests, quota-spawn-error tests, ACP tests all pass - `pnpm turbo test --filter="@paperclip/server"` — codex-local-execute integration test passes, heartbeat tests stabilized - Classification codes (`refresh_token_reused` / `refresh_token_expired` / `refresh_token_invalidated`) appear in run logs when the corresponding Codex error strings are encountered - CI: `server (2/3)`, `serialized suites (2/4)`, and `verify` gates expected green; `security-review` check expected neutral ## Risks Low risk. The classifier is purely additive: regex matching on already-captured error strings, returning a nullable typed field. Callers that do not inspect the classification field are unaffected. No execution paths, retry logic, or existing error surfaces changed. ## Model Used - **Provider:** Anthropic - **Model ID:** `claude-sonnet-4-6` - **Context window:** 200K tokens - **Mode:** standard tool use (no 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 - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-14 22:40:38 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	931eec3fbf	feat(mcp) [split 4/8]: wire gateway runtime and Smoke Lab (#9559) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 4/8 and focuses on gateway runtime, Smoke Lab, plugins, and server wiring > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The policy core needs runtime execution, endpoint guards, route registration, heartbeat integration, and adapter MCP injection to become operational. - Proposed solution: Adds the remaining server routes/wiring/consumers, runtime tests, adapter-utils MCP contracts, and Claude/Codex injection implementations required by the server layer. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/03-server-tool-access`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: SecurityEngineer for gateway, endpoint guard, token issuance, and runtime wiring; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds the remaining server routes/wiring/consumers, runtime tests, adapter-utils MCP contracts, and Claude/Codex injection implementations required by the server layer. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - Changed server test set — 26 files, 382 tests passed - Affected server adapter tests — 38 tests passed after concrete adapter boundary move - Adapter-utils and Codex focused tests — 76 tests passed ## Risks - Remote endpoint validation, token handling, and runtime supervision are security-sensitive and can fail closed or deny legitimate access if misconfigured. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [x] My branch name describes the change 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-14 15:07:30 -05:00