DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
6383eb8033
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Budgets stop agent spending. The budget hard stop is a control-plane invariant > - The budget routes (`PATCH /api/agents/:id/budgets`, `PATCH /api/companies/:id/budgets`) are board-only > - `PATCH /api/agents/:id` also accepts `budgetMonthlyCents`, and the configuration service writes the agent budget policy from it. That route had no board check for the field > - So an agent, such as a CEO, a manager or the agent itself, can change a monthly budget without a board user. This is a second route around a board-only control, like the pause bypass that #20164 fixed > - This pull request applies the budget route authority to every route that writes an agent budget, and gives agents the final board-only denial with a link to the budget page (#20151) > - The benefit is that only the board changes budgets, and an agent that asks gets a final answer that it can pass to the person ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17857 (earlier fix, now in conflict with master; this PR rebases it and adds the budget page link). Refs #20164 and #20151 (same pattern for PATCH status and board-only denials). **What happened** An agent can send `PATCH /api/agents/{id}` with `budgetMonthlyCents`. The route accepts it, and the configuration service writes the agent budget policy. This works for the agent's own budget and, with update permission, for other agents. The same field also reaches budget policy through a configuration rollback, direct agent creation, an immediate hire and a built-in agent provision. A chat eval (`budgets-costs.resolve-budget`) found the route. **Expected behavior** Only a board user can change an active budget, as on the dedicated budget routes. An agent gets `403` with code `board_access_required`. The denial says it is final and links the agent's budget tab (`/<prefix>/agents/<id>/budgets`) or the company budgets page (`/<prefix>/activity/budgets`). An agent can still propose a budget in a hire that waits for board approval. The approving board user activates it. **Steps to reproduce** 1. On master, authenticate as an agent of a company (for example the CEO). 2. Send `PATCH /api/agents/{agentId}` with body `{"budgetMonthlyCents": 5000}`, for its own id or for another agent. 3. See `200`. The agent budget policy changes with no board action. 4. The new route tests reproduce this: on master source they fail with `expected 200 to be 403`. ## What Changed - `PATCH /api/agents/:id`: a changed `budgetMonthlyCents` requires a board actor. An unchanged amount with other edits still works. - Configuration rollback: a rollback that changes the budget requires a board actor. - `POST /api/companies/:id/agents` and an immediate `agent-hires`: a positive budget requires a board actor. A hire that needs board approval keeps the proposed budget and does not activate it before approval. - Built-in agent provision: a budget override requires a board actor. - `prepareAgentConfiguration` rejects an agent-originated budget change again (defense in depth). An agent rollback with an unchanged amount does not rewrite the policy. - Board writes keep the actual operator identity. The initial hire budget is saved in the hire transaction. - `assertBoard` and `boardAccessRequired` take an optional board page. Budget denials link the agent's budget tab or the company budgets page, not the general agent profile. - Agent access map updated. - This includes the four commits of #17857 (f970f6b01f,8c06aba41c,e5682d22fa,b6cd49d4b6), rebased onto master with the conflicts resolved, then squashed. ## Verification - Red on master source, same tests: 12 budget tests fail. The PATCH tests fail with `expected 200 to be 403` for the agent's own budget and for a CEO on another agent. Built-in provision fails with `expected 200 to be 403`. Creation and immediate hire fail with `expected 201 to be 403`. - Green with the fix: `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/built-in-agent-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-hire-idempotency-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-budget-configuration.test.ts`: 222 passed. - `src/modules/agent-lifecycle/__tests__/lifecycle.test.ts` (embedded Postgres): 76 passed. - `agent-skills-routes`, `agent-adapter-validation-routes`, `openapi-routes`, `agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes`: 275 passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed. `git diff --check`: passed. - Server `tsc --noEmit`: no errors in changed files. One error in `native-session-executor.ts` comes from a linked runner build in the local worktree, not from this change. CI runs the full typecheck. ## Risks - Agent clients that set an active budget directly now get `403`. They must propose the budget in an approval-gated hire, or ask a board user. - Agent creation with no budget or a zero budget is not changed. Pending hire budgets do not activate before approval. - Trusted internal plugin provisioning keeps its prior behavior and gets no board identity. - No schema or migration change. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution, in Claude Code. The rebased commits from #17857 were first written with OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex. ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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.
The chat scenario catalog uses these same IDs for human requests and expected outcomes. Its scenarios retain the access boundaries here; neither a CEO role nor a planned scenario grants board authority or establishes a working production tool binding.
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 is enabled by default, but explicit server,
company-allowlist and binding settings can narrow admission. It requires 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.
Connection-management reads support Standard, Ask and Plan; mutations require
Standard. Skill-test runs and nonstandard task-bridge keys cannot administer
connections. These gates supplement each operation's grants, resolved resource
and target scope, and responsible-user authority. See the
rollout policy
and connection authorization.
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.