DottaandPaperclip
46de15ff4b
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agents and their saved work. > - Native runs can prepare a remote workspace before provider execution. > - A finalization deadline can stop a run outside its normal exception path. > - That handler marked the run failed without recording its prepared files for recovery. > - Retry then waited for a lease whose preservation had no durable owner. > - This pull request records the exact source in the deadline transaction through the existing recovery service. > - Existing containment and file recovery can then settle the source before another executor starts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native run failed at its control deadline with a prepared workspace and no accepted result. Its environment lease remained active. The run had no workspace preservation record. A saved Retry waited for remote cleanup without a preservation operation to finish that cleanup. **Expected behavior** Record unfinished files when the deadline marks a native run failed. Use the existing stop-and-retain worker. Keep accepted results, exact source binding, and current task ownership authoritative. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Persist a native run with a prepared workspace, an active lease, and an expired control deadline. 2. Reconcile the deadline twice. 3. Inspect the source lease and the run's workspace recovery record. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against `a67a18c171816b097f46eae78fc58c7e55c9c565`. **Deployment mode** Hosted native Runner with a remote sandbox. The regression uses real local PostgreSQL and no provider mocks. Related: Refs #17741 for committed Retry delivery. Refs #17073 for remote process-exit verification. This change records file preservation after a deadline; it does not change either policy. ## What Changed - Call the existing native workspace preservation service in the transaction that fails an abandoned run. - Preserve files after reassignment without changing the current task owner or state. - Add real-database cases for prepared, finalized, mismatched, reassigned, and accepted-result states. Repeated reconciliation retains one source obligation and creates no successor. - Document the deadline behavior and its existing access boundaries. ## Verification - Red: on unchanged production code, the prepared-workspace case failed because its recovery record was null. Finalized and mismatched controls passed. - Green: all 10 deadline reconciliation tests pass. The existing native workspace recovery suite passes all 48 cases. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - Map checks, module-boundary checks, and `git diff --check` passed. - Current-head CI passes on `23bf2aa4b50d2c4b74a9ee2ee47034ae542d25c2`: all GitHub Actions CI lanes, including grouped/serialized tests, Runner verification, typecheck, build, E2E, and Canary Dry Run, succeeded. Two Storybook-only checks were skipped. Greptile is 5/5 with no findings. Superagent Security Scan also passed. Entire Gates reports passing checks/findings and fails only because no reviewer has approved trail #10. - The first server shard 11/12 attempt passed all 1,750 assertions but reported an unhandled early process-exit rejection in the unchanged workspace-exposure fixture. Its focused local suite passed (28 passed, 3 skipped); one CI rerun passed. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was started, then interrupted after the complete CI lanes passed to avoid duplicate work. No full local suite pass is claimed. Local targeted tests, typecheck, and build passed. - On the affected staging instance, the existing deployed preservation helper registered the exact failed source. Normal Retry then drove actual sandbox stop, file recovery, and a persisted successful recovery receipt. A successor reached a separate remote process-fingerprint failure before provider execution. The automatic deadline change is not deployed; task execution recovery remains incomplete. - Initial local setup attempts did not reach product assertions: skipped dependency lifecycle scripts left native PostgreSQL library links absent, and the restricted shell blocked localhost binding. The package's link hydration and an authorized isolated listener resolved those setup prerequisites. One new negative-control assertion also required null-safe access; the final red run retained only the intended behavioral failure. ## Risks - File preservation must not certify provider termination. The existing stop receipt, source binding, copyback, and admission checks remain in force. - Preservation failure rolls back the deadline transaction, leaving its durable deadline eligible for another bounded attempt. - Reassignment preserves old files without changing the new owner's task. Accepted results retain their current finalizer. - No schema, credential, provider, or polling change. Historical failed runs still require scoped recovery; this patch does not replay them. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and browser tools. The exact serving model ID 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 (targeted suites; full local suite interrupted after CI passed) - [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 (CI lanes pass; external Entire reviewer-approval gate remains pending) - [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>
Paperclip agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
Use full capability IDs when referring to access contracts outside their file:
onboarding/company means the company capability in onboarding.md in both maps.
The feature index lists feature and
capability IDs; IDs and references
explains entry-point references and stable naming.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api requires operator rollout admission, a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.