mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 12:04:41 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
db32bdf98b
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/8/changes/paperclip/8 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub tools save review assessments and publish their confirmed receipts. > - A timeout before publication staging can leave an invocation with no saved publication. > - Exact replay must repeat only the authorized preflight and converge on one publication. > - PR requests also share an App-owned summary comment. Progress and maintenance must preserve its final content. > - A native turn can intentionally wait for an author without sending another reply. > - This pull request repairs unstaged replay and prevents queued or passive-wait notices from replacing a published assessment. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related repairs: Refs #16883, Refs #16284, Refs #16275 recover saved publication receipts. Refs #17183 covers unavailable approved replay output. Refs #17714 fixes a separate publication lock-order problem. **What happened?** Exact review retries can return null `begin_review` output or `github_publication_unavailable` after an upstream read times out before publication staging. Separately, response maintenance can replace a completed PR assessment with “Review queued…” or a generic missing-response notice after an authorized no-new-work reply. The latter run can correctly commit a passive wait while its external summary is still overwritten. **Expected behavior** Exact retries repeat only the authorized preflight. A saved or uncertain publication keeps its existing recovery owner. Queued acknowledgements preserve final App-owned summary content. A committed native passive wait settles its current acknowledgement without writing a response or treating an old summary as a new-run reply. Success before presentation remains held until a durable decision exists; exact current-run confirmed receipts can retire their placeholders. Genuine missing/error responses retain fallback handling. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Hold a GitHub metadata read until an authorized gateway call times out before publication staging. Repeat the exact request. 2. Publish a valid PR assessment. Send an ordinary author reply that asks for no new work and no duplicate comment. 3. Commit the native `response_wake` with a no-comment server presentation decision. Run response maintenance twice. 4. The base returns the invalid replay result or replaces the assessment with progress/fallback text. **Paperclip version or commit** Replay regression: `41c42895fa862c586ff841f8c50200d93ffc83a4`. Maintenance regression: the previous PR head `c7553d2325df53d98d9febff7023ade4b1e704eb`. Both use real PostgreSQL and simulated GitHub responses. The maintenance failure was also observed in normal hosted use. **Deployment mode** Source checkout on macOS arm64 with isolated PostgreSQL 18, followed by a dedicated QA qualification. No production rollout is included. ## What Changed - Route exact `begin_review` replay through its typed owner. Repeat unstaged preflight only with the complete request digest and no successful invocation result. - Preserve current policy, immutable assessments, unique action keys, receipt recovery, and provider leases. - Preserve a verified App/marker-owned final shared PR comment during acknowledgements. New canonical assessments can still replace it at the same or a new head. - Project only a bounded server-committed native wait decision. Settle the current main-PR acknowledgement without provider writes or a fabricated current-run reply receipt. - Hold succeeded native runs while presentation is undecided, including the committed-before-presentation window. An exact current-run confirmed receipt can still retire its placeholder. - Keep missing/error fallback and uncertain publication checks. Update the bot guide, execution semantics, maps, and real-database regressions. ## Verification - **Causal RED:** exact begin replay returned null; exact unstaged submit replay returned unavailable. The new real-database maintenance test then reproduced the exact generic summary overwrite. Its first repair also exposed an earlier queued-acknowledgement overwrite. Both publication boundaries are repaired. Four additional ordering regressions reproduced the generic PATCH while native presentation was undecided; the corrected tests hold until the same row settles. - **Local GREEN:** 196 complete GitHub workflow cases pass on an empty migrated PostgreSQL fixture. This includes queued/running preservation, both success-before-presentation windows, null/scalar/invalid decisions, exact-current versus predecessor receipts, durable acknowledgement settlement, repeated no-op maintenance, eventual genuine missing/error fallback, pending writes and same/new-head canonical replacement. Workspace typecheck, exact-head build, maps and whitespace checks pass. The real database respects the actual selected-column projection. - **Command:** `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL=<owned-postgres-18> pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'GitHub agent review workflow'`. - **CI/review:** historical heads `c7553d2325df53d98d9febff7023ade4b1e704eb` and `4d00d3af6f2ccbda8f38a98f81d392d82dd3c59c` had Greptile 5/5. Final readiness head `2d267f1e4aa0b835a11aede97798fbd800d9cd96` passed independent source review with no actionable finding and fresh Greptile 5/5 with zero unresolved threads; all 54 check runs pass with 2 intended skips; Snyk is successful and the merge state is CLEAN. The dedicated QA destination acceptance also passed. - **Full-suite limitation:** the earlier `pnpm test:run` attempt produced no final summary. Its retained log reports failures in unchanged workspace-runtime tests and 15-second gateway-audit and stale-question timeouts. Their cause remains unknown. Do not treat the targeted results as a full local-suite pass. - **Live evidence and limits:** normal native OpenCode/DeepSeek review delivery published a useful assessment, inline finding and App check at the exact reviewed head. A separate ordinary author reply delivered a useful answer and settled. Those are ordinary delivery proofs, not live injected-timeout proofs. A later no-new-work reply exposed the maintenance overwrite. The final combined source `070e9c4ead9341cd497b23f533a91bf194475e79` includes the exact publication repair and passed normal review → ordinary author reply → quiet destination acceptance. A normal current-head review restored the legitimate assessment; the ordinary no-new-work reply then committed a passive wait without new GitHub tools. The same 1,436-character summary stayed identical while queued/running, after terminal settlement, and more than 3 minutes 50 seconds after successful cleanup. Review rows and receipts stayed unchanged, with no owner, live run or queued input. The timeout fault fixtures prove replay and single-publication safety. The historical first upstream timeout producer remains unknown. The live board reads do not expose the raw acknowledgement action row: its terminal cancellation and next-pass no-op are real-PostgreSQL fixture proofs, while the hosted checks prove actual destination stability. The hosted journey did not inject a timeout or pause the terminal/presentation writer window. Private destinations, raw receipts and internal task identifiers remain outside this PR. ## Risks - Original and repeated metadata reads can overlap. The immutable assessment, action uniqueness and publication lease must remain authoritative. - Missing complete request identity or a deleted completed receipt remains held. The gateway does not reconstruct receipts or relax approval. - Passive suppression requires actual native mode/committed phase, current source ownership and the server's no-comment decision. It applies only to the main PR review surface. Uncertain current writes stay held; other surfaces keep normal placeholder retirement. - There is no migration, credential change, dependency or new retry scheduler. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`) in Codex assisted with diagnosis, implementation, tests, and source review. It used reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The context window size is 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>
Apps, Connections, and Integrations
Audience: internal engineers and product contributors working on integrations.
Start here when adding a provider: Connection authoring runbook. It is the canonical agent tutorial from provider research and protocol classification through manifest generation, branding, secrets, deterministic tests, real-account proof, and PR submission.
Chat and email channels: conversation-channel contract, question inventory and quality bar, and per-provider question coverage index.
Runtime authentication: AI Connections.
Long-term memory: Experimental memory connectors.
Provider notes: Google Workspace, Gmail, Asana, Sentry, PostHog, Braintrust, Neon, Superagent, Gauge, Ditto, 1Password, Unikraft, AgentMail, Telem.AI, iMessage Photon, Enterpret, Supabase, and Vercel. Optional credential custody: Vercel Connect.
Post-read action: classify a new integration request, pick the right Paperclip layer to change, and avoid creating a parallel connection framework.
Decision Record
Board decisions from PAP-13211 make the Apps v2 substrate on the PAP-10341 branch canonical:
- D1: Apps v2 is the substrate. The active model is
tool_applications,tool_connections, catalog entries, profiles, policy rules, action requests, gateway sessions, audit events, and runtime slots. Connections v1 is retired as an implementation path. - D2: one credential authority per connection, brokered projections. The
default is the Paperclip instance vault: durable third-party credentials live
in
company_secretsas secret refs. A reviewed remote MCP method may instead opt in to Vercel Connect, in which case Vercel is the durable credential authority and Paperclip stores only the connector reference and redacted grant metadata. A connection must never mix those two sources. Adapter config, plugin config, harness credential files, and run environments may receive only brokered or projected credentials. - D3: the vocabulary and three-door IA are product law. The default product doors are Apps, Connections, and Review. Protocol and operator-depth concepts live behind Developer or Advanced surfaces.
- D4: unification lands on PAP-10341. Pages, CircleBack-style harness MCP OAuth, provider gallery work, and plugin-provided integrations converge on this branch instead of spawning new integration substrates.
- D5: inbound stays thin. External clients that call Paperclip use scoped Paperclip tokens and existing profiles/rules. They do not get a separate permission model.
Canonical Object Model
Use connection as the unifying noun. A connection is four things:
- A stored credential reference.
- A capability catalog.
- A governance layer.
- An audit trail.
Everything else is an axis on that object:
| Axis | Values | It answers |
|---|---|---|
| Direction | outbound, inbound | Who is the client? |
| Transport | MCP, native REST/OpenAPI, OAuth app install, webhook | How do bytes move? |
| Auth mode | OAuth, API key/PAT, app installation, none | What does the secret represent? |
| Credential owner | company, user, run | Whose identity acts? |
| Packaging | catalog entry, plugin, skill | How does it ship? |
MCP is a transport, not a product category. "Install the Discord app", "connect Google Drive", and "add an MCP endpoint" all produce governed connections with different transport/auth values.
Layer Stack
When you are unsure where a change belongs, place it on the narrowest layer that solves the problem:
| Layer | Owns | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Surface | user-facing Apps, Connections, Review, Developer/Advanced screens | gallery cards, setup wizard, review queue |
| Governance | profiles, bindings, allow/ask-first/block rules, quarantine, audit | read-only profile, ask-first write policy |
| Capability | action catalogs, schemas, risk classes, changed-tool review | search_issues, create_comment, schema hash |
| Credential | company_secrets, OAuth broker, credential resolver, token broker |
Slack bot token ref, Google OAuth refresh token ref |
| Identity | actor attribution and token exchange | board user, agent run, first-party service identity |
| Transport | how the external system is reached | remote HTTP MCP, local stdio, REST/OpenAPI, webhook |
The agent should not hold a durable provider credential. It should hold a Paperclip run/session token; the server or broker resolves the connection, checks governance, invokes the provider, and writes audit.
Identity vs. connections
Signing a user in and connecting a resource are different planes with different owners, different token profiles, and different homes. Do not merge them. This section is the public, connections-side statement of the identity model so connector implementers inherit the rule without depending on private identity-service documentation or re-deriving it.
| Plane | Question | Lives where | Token profile |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1. Sign-in methods | Who are you? | paperclip-id (id.paperclip.ing → Account) |
Minimal-scope provider tokens (openid email profile), used once to authenticate, encrypted at rest, never exported |
| P2. Connections (Apps) | What may your agents touch? | Paperclip App instances (tool_connections), acquired via the connect broker for hosted + self-hosted |
Rich-scope, long-lived resource tokens in the instance's encrypted vault; per-agent grants; risk-tier policy defaults |
| P3. Login with Paperclip | Who may authenticate against us? | paperclip-id OIDC provider + DB-backed client registry |
Our ES256 ID/access tokens issued by us to registered RPs (instances, the broker, future third parties) |
Everything in doc/connections/ — the First-30 matrix,
the connection authoring runbook, and the connect-broker work —
lives on plane P2. It never acquires, stores, or brokers a P1 sign-in token.
The standing rule (D7)
Adopted as a standing rule (decision D7) with the identity-model plan. State it verbatim in any P2 design so the app-store work cannot drift into merging the planes:
Sign-in tokens are never reused as resource tokens; id.paperclip.ing never stores resource tokens; no connections hub on the ID service.
P2 tokens flow broker → instance vault as pass-through only; the id.paperclip.ing Account page therefore must not grow a "Connections" hub. The reasons to hold the planes apart (from the plan §3):
- Scope discipline. Sign-in wants the narrowest grant; connections want deliberately broad ones. One button that does both is how you grant repo access just to log in.
- Blast radius. id.paperclip.ing holding every customer's Vercel/Slack/GitHub resource tokens would make it the single juiciest target in the fleet; the broker is intentionally pass-through.
- Self-hosted symmetry. Instances own their vaults, so self-hosters don't depend on our uptime to use their own connections.
- Legibility. Sign-in and connections answer different user questions, and every product we benchmarked (Vercel, Railway, GitHub, Google) keeps them on separate pages with separate names.
The explicit Vercel Connect exception does not change D7 or merge P1 and P2.
The operator chooses Vercel as the P2 credential authority for an individual
connection. id.paperclip.ing is not involved, and neither sign-in tokens nor
provider tokens pass through it. The deployment's Vercel access token or
workload OIDC identity is bootstrap authority for that external vault, not a
provider resource credential.
Naming alignment
Use the surface-correct name for each plane; they intentionally differ:
| Surface | Plane | Name to use |
|---|---|---|
| Paperclip App instances | P2 | "Connections" |
| id.paperclip.ing Account | P1 | "Ways to sign in" |
| id.paperclip.ing admin | P3 | "OIDC clients" (until the app store productizes it) |
Packaging Rule
Default to a catalog entry when an integration can be described as metadata: manifest, auth config, action catalog, resource filters, and policy defaults.
Use a plugin only when the integration needs product code such as custom UI pages, its own tables, workers, migrations, routines, or specialized ingestion. A plugin may bundle catalog entries, but it must not bypass the connection, profile, policy, credential, and audit model.
Use a skill for agent instructions. Skills may use connections; they must not own durable tokens.
Canonical Docs
- Glossary defines product and internal terms.
- Identity vs. connections is the public statement of the P1/P2/P3 boundary and the D7 standing rule for connections work.
- Security threat model harvests the keeper from PAP-2359 and maps it onto Apps v2.
- First-30 matrix harvests the keeper from PAP-2432 and is the source matrix for connector playbook work.
- Connecting any remote MCP server is the baseline: how an operator connects a standards-compliant remote MCP endpoint with no Paperclip code change, and how sign-in resolves a client.
- Connection authoring runbook is the one end-to-end, agent-executable guide for adding a vendor as a catalog entry on Apps v2: research, connection-type selection, OAuth/API-key/generated-URL setup, encrypted credential handling, branding, implementation, browser and live-provider testing, verification, and PR submission.
- Vercel Connect operator guide documents the optional external credential source, deployment flags, runtime resolution, recovery, and smoke requirements.
- MCP access governance remains the operator runbook for the current gateway, profile, policy, approval, runtime, and audit APIs.
Migration Notes
Connections v1 contributed useful policy, UX, and rollout thinking, but its
implementation branch is no longer the target. When you see old tickets or code
using connections, connection_grants, or a provider-directory mental model,
translate the intent into Apps v2:
| Connections v1 intent | Apps v2 home |
|---|---|
| Provider directory | Apps gallery / tool_applications |
| Configured provider instance | Connection / tool_connections |
| Grant allowlist | Profiles, profile bindings, policies |
| Resource filters | Policy/profile conditions plus provider config |
| Tool broker | Tool gateway and runtime supervisor |
| Connection UX tail | Apps, Connections, Review, Developer/Advanced IA |
Do not add new work to the retired v1 branch. If an old ticket still describes a valid product gap, retarget it to an active Apps v2 issue or close it as superseded with a link to the replacement.
For Slack chat bot creation, installation, recovery, and live qualification, see Automatic Slack app setup.