Files
PaperClipAI/doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md
T
DottaandPaperclip f7e36ba3e2 fix: isolate repository-free low-trust tasks in private directories (#14766)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages work by agents within company boundaries.
> - Email tasks can run under the low-trust review preset.
> - These tasks must use an isolated workspace and a sandbox.
> - The default workspace strategy assumed that the project had a Git
repository.
> - A project without a configured workspace failed before the agent
could start.
> - This change gives each such task a private directory and keeps the
sandbox requirement.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**
An inbound email assigned to a low-trust agent failed with
`git_worktree_base_not_git_checkout` when its boundary project had no
configured workspace. Setup had accepted the project and sandbox.

**Expected behavior**
The agent can process email without a repository. Its workspace stays
isolated from other tasks and the shared agent home.

**Steps to reproduce**
1. Select a low-trust agent with an active sandbox and a project
boundary.
2. Leave the project without a configured workspace.
3. Receive an email through AgentMail.
4. Observe that startup fails before provider work starts.

**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced against `5edf55d73`.

**Deployment mode**
Hosted staging with sandbox execution.

Related: #13256 added email tasks. #13636 fixed default isolation for
projects without workspaces; the explicit isolation used by low-trust
tasks still needed this path.

## What Changed

- Select private task directories for low-trust sandbox tasks with no
configured workspace or explicit workspace strategy.
- Keep each directory scoped to its company and task. Retain files
across turns and reassignment and reject symlink paths and mismatched
workspace reuse.
- Preserve Git validation for configured workspaces and explicit
strategies, plus the existing authorization and remote gates for
referenced projects.
- Add a startup regression and directory isolation tests. Document the
supported repository-free path.

## Verification

- The startup regression failed before the fix with the same Git
validation error.
- 260 targeted email, workspace policy, heartbeat, referenced-project
and directory tests pass.
- Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass on the latest commit.
- All CI checks, including the complete sharded test suite and canary
dry run, pass on `b4ccd9802b09b2e95499df72d48b4a3906b8c328`.
- The final commit also passes the same server shard locally: 60 files,
1,024 passed / 6 skipped tests. The earlier all-groups local run was
interrupted during follow-up edits; complete-suite verification comes
from CI on the final commit.
- Deployed the reviewed commit to staging and independently verified the
full serving SHA. Two real Codex runs in Daytona succeeded and finalized
the same private company/task workspace. The first wrote a 35-byte
marker; the second read the existing file without modifying it and
returned the independently verified SHA-256
`ce3bbeb44d07ca6822826d3a5945752a38d30b356d10829f3159a191e5aa92a6`.
- Live runtime caveat: Codex reported a nested `bwrap` loopback
permission error and used its configured escalated execution inside
Daytona. The outer Daytona sandbox remained active for both runs.
- The startup regression uses a real database, production trust checks,
workspace persistence, sandbox lease acquisition and realization, and a
fake provider. It checks reassignment and allows only an authorized
referenced project.
- The transfer regression runs production archive/sync-back/merge code
against distinct filesystem roots: create output in one sandbox, restore
it, then read and update it in a fresh sandbox. The provider I/O is
emulated; live staging verification is separate.

## Risks

- The new default applies only to low-trust sandbox tasks without
workspace configuration. Standard agents and explicit Git strategies
keep their existing behavior.
- Task directories retain work across turns and consume instance
storage. The change does not migrate or copy existing shared files.
- No database migration or credential changes are required.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code
execution, and browser tools. The exact runtime model revision and
context window 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>
2026-09-30 18:06:07 -05:00

3.8 KiB

Low-Trust Presets

Paperclip ships core trust preset names so containment decisions are enforced in Community Edition even when EE policy editing is unavailable.

Presets

  • standard: the default V1 company-visible collaboration model. This preserves existing behavior for normal agents.
  • low_trust_review: an opt-in containment preset for automated work that may consume hostile or prompt-injected input, such as untrusted pull requests, external tickets, dependency diffs, or generated review output.

Boundary Model

low_trust_review is resolved from existing JSON policy fields:

  • agent permissions: permissions.trustPreset and permissions.authorizationPolicy.trustBoundary
  • project policy: executionWorkspacePolicy.authorizationPolicy.trustBoundary
  • issue/run policy: executionPolicy.authorizationPolicy.trustBoundary

The resolver intersects those sources. Narrower wins. A low-trust preset must resolve to a concrete company-local project, root issue, or issue-id scope. If a policy source names another company, uses an unsupported preset, or lacks that scope for risky access, Paperclip fails closed.

Containment, Not Privacy

This is containment for hostile automated work. It is not a general project, issue, or human privacy system.

V1 standard work remains company-visible by default: board users and in-company actors can inspect company work objects unless a separate access-control feature changes that behavior. Low-trust containment instead limits what the low-trust agent can read or mutate through the Paperclip API and prevents raw untrusted output from being automatically promoted into higher-trust agent context.

Low-trust agents cannot read or mutate agent configuration, instruction bundles, or company skill configuration through direct grants. Configuration changes from low-trust work must go through higher-trust review and promotion paths instead.

Child→Parent Reporting Under Containment

The direct-parent report comment (doc/execution-semantics.md §6, "Child→Parent Reporting") is off by default for low_trust_review: a contained run reads untrusted input, so a free-prose comment into the higher-trust parent thread is a prompt-injection promotion path. Contained reviewers report by completing their own review issue (done — the verdict is the deliverable; the issue_blockers_resolved wake carries it upward) and by the platform's system-attributed stop-only relay when they enter blocked or cancelled. Never instruct a contained delegate to comment on its parent issue.

Runtime Containment

Managed low_trust_review runs fail closed unless Paperclip can enforce the runtime boundary:

  • the selected execution environment must use the sandbox driver
  • the effective execution workspace mode must be isolated_workspace
  • the issue being run must be inside the resolved low-trust boundary
  • secret references must use binding ids explicitly allowed by the boundary
  • inline sensitive environment values such as API keys and tokens are rejected
  • workspace runtime-service mutations are denied unless the boundary explicitly grants the runtime.manage tool class

When the task's project has no configured workspace and no layer specifies a workspace strategy, sandbox execution uses a private directory for that company and task. The directory persists across turns and reassignment and never imports the shared project directory or agent home. No Git repository is required for this case. Configured workspaces and explicit Git strategies keep their existing validation; a missing or broken checkout does not fall back to an empty directory.

The Docker workflow in doc/UNTRUSTED-PR-REVIEW.md remains useful for manual local review, but Paperclip-managed low-trust execution requires a sandboxed environment instead of a host-local adapter process.