mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-08 11:13:44 +02:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
7eadc714d2
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Native runners send authenticated semantic tool inputs to the control plane. > - The runner hashes the complete input, but the receiver used a redacted receipt hash. > - Protected fields and credential-like document text can therefore fail integrity validation even when the input is unchanged. > - This pull request verifies the complete input with the existing canonical hash function. > - Receipt redaction and permanent rejection of altered input remain in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The Rust runner preserves tool arguments and hashes their canonical JSON. The TypeScript receiver instead redacts the input before hashing. A valid input such as a synthetic document containing `Bearer fixture_token_123456` fails with `native_event_replay_conflict`. A digest of redacted input can also pass without proving the original protected values. **Expected behavior** Verify the complete transmitted input after authentication and exact scope checks. Reject any incorrect digest before durable commit, dispatch, or ACK. **Steps to reproduce** Run the new authenticated controller regressions against the prior receiver. The protected-field and credential-like document cases fail, and the redacted-digest rejection case receives an ACK. The same tests pass with this change. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from source at `858094ba8123c7edb56623597cd96f0391f7e2d4` with synthetic fixtures. Applies to native runner deployments. Related: #14937 preserves semantic input bytes for execution. GitHub issue and PR searches found no duplicate fix; #14591 touches a separate question-draft contract. ## What Changed - Use the existing bounded raw canonical digest for incoming semantic and MCP tool inputs. - Keep receipt and diagnostic redaction unchanged. - Share four digest fixtures between Rust and the authenticated TypeScript controller, including protected fields, document text, Unicode keys, and number boundaries. - Test raw acceptance, altered protected values, forged and redacted digests, canonicalization limits, permanent reconnect fences, and authentication/scope rejection. - Document the separate wire and receipt contracts and the unchanged recovery fence. ## Verification - Before the production fix, the new selected regressions produced three expected failures and eight passes. - Focused controller, receipt, and semantic-tool suites: 138 tests passed. - Rust shared digest fixture test: 1 test passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed; the final receiver delta also passed its TypeScript typecheck. Canonical Linux PR CI passed the full aggregate test gate, runner checks, build, and canary dry run at `efcd38e2d8a9fa6340db4f4e863b6febbe8ca32a`. - Independent review passed, including 18 independently run authenticated regressions and the Rust golden test, plus both matching-digest size-limit cases after the test-only follow-up. Greptile is 5/5 on the current head with no unresolved threads. Diff whitespace and local secret/PII scan passed; fixtures are synthetic. ## Risks The verifier remains strict: there is no redacted-digest fallback. Existing authentication, scope, sequence, replay, settlement, and authorization checks remain in force. Receipt storage and redaction behavior are unchanged. This patch does not clear failed-run fences or replay prior work. Synthetic tests prove the protocol mismatch; they do not identify the contents of any historical rejected input. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with reasoning, code execution, and independent agent review. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>