mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-20 15:09:57 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
cc88b61c09
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to select verification recipes. > - The repository needs separate skills to create a verifier, maintain recipes, and run checks. > - Shared recipes must match current routes, controls, and prerequisites. > - This pull request adds portable verification skills and updates the existing map. > - The benefit is a repeatable verification workflow with clear ownership and evidence limits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15288, which added the existing feature map. The related test cleanup in #15978 changes test ownership; this PR changes skill instructions and recipes. **Issue type** Missing documentation and outdated verification instructions. **Where is the issue?** The project-local skills in `.agents/skills/` and the recipes in `feature-map/`. **What's wrong?** The repository lacks the portable creation and maintenance skills. The verifier mixes live verification with map editing. Some recipes describe old controls or omit required flags, identities, and provider setup. **Suggested fix** Import the skills and their complete references from Paperclip's pstack fork. Keep the existing map in its current directory. Let the verifier read recipes and report drift. Let the maintenance skill update the map. ## What Changed - Add `create-verification-skill` and `maintain-verification-skill` from the portable fork of Poteto's pstack. Include invocation policies, all feature-map examples, self-contained attribution notices and the full MIT license in each skill folder. - Use the existing `feature-map/` directory and Poteto's recipe format. Omit the fork's separate runtime skill and runtime-skill dependencies because Paperclip supplies execution. - Add `verify-paperclip` with executable launch, readiness, onboarding, and cleanup helpers. Use isolated temporary data and separate evidence directories. - Make `verify-paperclip` consume the map and report recipe drift. Give map editing to `maintain-verification-skill`. - Review all 35 feature files and correct 30 recipes. Clarify routes, flags, current controls, persistence scope, and the limits of linked tests. - Remove the unrelated Conference Room flag change from the onboarding smoke helper. - Add a standard-library ownership test. It proves that doctor and stop reject a foreign checkout without stopping its live server. A delayed-exit fixture also proves cleanup waits for runtime exit. - Keep audit screenshots and scratch reports outside the repository. No product code, migrations, lockfile, or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed after rebase: metadata validation for all three skills, Python syntax and executable checks, JavaScript syntax, 35-entry map/index consistency, relative links, license preservation, and `git diff --check`. - Ran one isolated live audit before rebase. Checked task persistence, document upload/download bytes, goal hierarchy, project edits, search, local process Agent Chat, question replies, queued-message discard/stop, and a harmless loopback MCP call. - Checked local settings and draft flows. Synthetic cost events reached a small budget limit and paused the test agent. These checks do not prove external model quality or provider billing. - Checked cleanup of the audit server, database, local MCP fixture, and workspace service inventory. - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Greptile: 5/5 on commit `4344ac4df7`. The cleanup finding is fixed and its review thread is resolved. A fresh review is pending for the notice relocation. - Passed: `python3 -m unittest discover -s .agents/skills/verify-paperclip/tests -v`. Both tests pass: the foreign fixture stayed alive after rejection, and owned cleanup waited for delayed runtime exit. - Passed: `pnpm build`. - All GitHub CI checks were green on commit `4344ac4df7`. The cloud-auth browser shard passed after one retry for a disposed mocked API response. The notice relocation passed skill metadata, relative-link, and license-preservation checks; fresh CI/review is pending. - The full local `pnpm test:run` did not complete. It was interrupted after nearly 30 minutes once the complete CI suite passed on the same commit. Exit code: 130. The new helper safety tests passed locally. The local full-suite checklist item stays unchecked. - Full live coverage is incomplete. Authenticated multi-user checks and external provider journeys need their own identities, credentials, and targets. - The corrected onboarding helper could not be re-tested after removing the flag mutation. Two fresh launches failed before server startup. Direct PostgreSQL initialization reported exhausted shared-memory IDs or limits. The host had free disk space. No host-wide limits or unrelated instances were changed. ## Risks - Recipe drift can return as the UI changes. The map records verification scope, not proof of a passed journey. - The new helpers assume a source checkout with installed dependencies, Python, Node, and `lsof`. The onboarding helper also needs Playwright. - The local audit found observations that need separate investigation: an action test returned fixture data while the connection control showed Off and native profiles existed; a failed status-card setup task left the card showing Setting up. Workspace service start also did not reach a running state. This PR does not change product behavior or redefine those outcomes as success. - The main audit trace did not finalize during browser shutdown. Screenshots, text captures, and iteration results were retained. - Live evidence was captured before rebase. The onboarding helper re-test and full provider/auth qualification remain incomplete. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, read-only source subagents, file edits, shell commands, and browser automation. ## 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 - [ ] 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>
3.3 KiB
3.3 KiB
Login, invitations, and access
People and agents enter the correct instance and company with the permissions granted to their identity. Login, membership, resource access, and CLI authorization have separate controls.
Implementation: auth page, company members, invitation.
Sub-features
login: sign in or claim the board in the configured deployment mode.invitations: join through a valid invite and handle expired or already-used links.membership: review join requests and manage company/instance membership and permissions.resources: respect company and resource boundaries on deep links and mutations.cli-auth: authorize a CLI session and revoke or replace credentials.
How to get to it (user POV)
login
Open /auth; first-owner bootstrap uses /board-claim/:token when configured.
invite-members
Open /invite/:token; operators manage members in company settings and join requests at /inbox/requests.
Create/revoke human links at Members → Invites
(/company/settings/members?tab=invites). Human invitees receive the chosen
role after sign-in; agent invitations still use join-request approval.
cli-authorization
Start the CLI auth/connect flow and approve its /cli-auth/:id browser page; instance access is under Settings when visible.
Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. For login tests use authenticated mode and two test users; local-trusted mode does not prove session enforcement. Use two companies for isolation checks.
login
Automated: auth UI and session routes cover their respective layers.
Manual: Sign in, reload a company deep link, sign out, and revisit it. Confirm the browser requests authentication rather than showing cached company data. Test an invalid claim separately on disposable state.
invite-members
Automated: member UI and invite replay provide component and route evidence.
Manual: Accept an invite as the intended user, inspect the resulting company and permissions, then reuse and expire disposable invites. Change a member permission, reload as that member, and verify a denied operation on another company remains denied.
cli-authorization
Automated: board auth client and token commands cover the client contracts.
Manual: Authorize the intended CLI context, make a read-only company request, then revoke its token and retry. Verify failure is explicit and does not silently fall back to another identity.
Use auth login, auth whoami, and auth revoke-current with explicit context.
Retry with the same bearer to prove revocation; deleting local credentials with
logout alone does not establish that server revocation succeeded.
Gotchas
- Settings visibility is not authorization; direct requests still need permission checks.
- An agent bearer key must not gain another company’s access.
- Never put invite tokens, session cookies, or API keys in verification evidence.