Files
PaperClipAI/server/src/services/inbox-agent-policy.ts
T
59fb27ff79 feat(inbox): let agents safely tidy user inboxes (#9724)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their work
> - The inbox is a per-user attention view, so archiving an item must
not alter the underlying issue, assignment, or status
> - Agents can help responsible users tidy resolved work only when the
action is company-scoped, reversible, policy-controlled, and fully
attributable
> - The database and authorization foundations landed in #9654 and
#9658, but the end-to-end archive routes, audit details, agent workflow
guidance, and operator UI still need to ship together
> - Separate stacked PRs #9659 and #9661 made the complete behavior
harder to review and land as one coherent capability
> - This pull request consolidates the remaining server,
shared-contract, documentation, skill, and UI work on top of current
master
> - The benefit is a single reviewable change that lets agents safely
archive responsible-user inbox items and lets users control or undo that
behavior

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

### Subsystem affected

Cross-cutting inbox management across shared contracts, server
authorization/routes/services, shipped agent skills, and the board UI.

### Problem or motivation

Agents may complete work whose issue remains in the responsible user's
Mine inbox. Existing board-user archive behavior does not provide the
agent-facing policy endpoints, target resolution, heartbeat-run
attribution, typed denials, conservative workflow guidance, or UI needed
for safe agent-managed cleanup.

### Proposed solution

Allow authorized agents to archive or unarchive responsible-user inbox
items under the user's open, allowlist, or disabled policy; preserve
actor/agent/run attribution in issue detail and activity records; expose
policy controls and agent archive attribution in the UI; and document
conservative cleanup rules for agents and PR gardening.

### Alternatives considered

- Reuse generic issue mutation permissions: rejected because inbox state
belongs to a target user and requires user-scoped authorization.
- Automatically archive every completed or closed item: rejected because
completion signals can still require human review or a decision.
- Keep the backend and UI as separate stacked PRs: superseded by this
consolidated PR so the complete user-visible behavior can be reviewed
and verified together.

### Related work

- Builds on merged foundations #9654 and #9658.
- Supersedes the remaining stacked changes in #9659 and #9661.
- `ROADMAP.md` has no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization
initiative.

## What Changed

- Added shared inbox-agent policy types and validators plus
company-scoped self-service policy routes and OpenAPI coverage.
- Enabled agent archive/unarchive mutations with responsible-user
targeting, policy enforcement, typed failures, attribution, idempotency,
and detailed activity auditing.
- Returned agent archive attribution in issue detail and documented
reversible inbox cleanup semantics in the implementation spec and
Paperclip skill.
- Added conservative PR-gardening inbox tidy guidance that keeps GitHub
access read-only and avoids archiving work that still needs human
action.
- Added the Profile settings policy control and Issue Properties
attribution/unarchive UI with focused component coverage and narrow-pane
handling.

## Verification

- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/inbox-agent-policy-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/InboxAgentPolicyControl.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 110 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts` — 1 passed.
- `node --test
.agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 9 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — changed files are clean; the
repository-wide command currently reports nine unrelated pre-existing
`#9627` literals outside this PR's diff.

## Risks

- Agent inbox mutations broaden an existing endpoint path, so
authorization and target resolution must remain fail-closed; focused
route and authorization tests cover allowed and denied paths.
- Archive state affects only the responsible user's inbox presentation
and remains reversible; it does not mutate issue status, assignment, or
visibility.
- The UI policy defaults to the existing open behavior, while allowlist
and disabled modes can reduce agent access.
- This PR intentionally builds on #9654 and #9658 and contains no new
migration number or modification to an already-applied migration.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.4, medium reasoning, repository tool use,
shell execution, code review, and test execution.

## 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
(`feat/inbox-agent-archive-complete`) 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>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-16 16:49:18 -05:00

59 lines
2.2 KiB
TypeScript

import { and, eq, inArray } from "drizzle-orm";
import { agents, userInboxAgentPolicies, type Db } from "@paperclipai/db";
import type { InboxAgentPolicy, UpdateInboxAgentPolicy } from "@paperclipai/shared";
import { unprocessable } from "../errors.js";
export function inboxAgentPolicyService(db: Db) {
async function get(companyId: string, userId: string): Promise<InboxAgentPolicy> {
const row = await db
.select()
.from(userInboxAgentPolicies)
.where(and(
eq(userInboxAgentPolicies.companyId, companyId),
eq(userInboxAgentPolicies.userId, userId),
))
.then((rows) => rows[0] ?? null);
return row
? { ...row, materialized: true }
: {
companyId,
userId,
mode: "open",
allowedAgentIds: [],
materialized: false,
createdAt: null,
updatedAt: null,
};
}
async function update(companyId: string, userId: string, input: UpdateInboxAgentPolicy): Promise<InboxAgentPolicy> {
const allowedAgentIds = input.mode === "allowlist" ? [...new Set(input.allowedAgentIds)] : [];
if (allowedAgentIds.length > 0) {
const companyAgentIds = await db
.select({ id: agents.id })
.from(agents)
.where(and(eq(agents.companyId, companyId), inArray(agents.id, allowedAgentIds)))
.then((rows) => new Set(rows.map((row) => row.id)));
const invalidAgentIds = allowedAgentIds.filter((agentId) => !companyAgentIds.has(agentId));
if (invalidAgentIds.length > 0) {
throw unprocessable("Inbox agent policy contains agents outside the company", {
code: "inbox_agent_policy_invalid_agents",
invalidAgentIds,
});
}
}
const now = new Date();
const [row] = await db
.insert(userInboxAgentPolicies)
.values({ companyId, userId, mode: input.mode, allowedAgentIds, updatedAt: now })
.onConflictDoUpdate({
target: [userInboxAgentPolicies.companyId, userInboxAgentPolicies.userId],
set: { mode: input.mode, allowedAgentIds, updatedAt: now },
})
.returning();
return { ...row!, materialized: true };
}
return { get, update };
}