mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 16:27:18 +02:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 3/8 and focuses on tool-access policy and authorization core > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: Authorization, OAuth binding, secret projection, content guards, and policy evaluation need a security-reviewable server boundary. - Proposed solution: Adds tool-access services/routes/tests plus the runtime service dependencies directly imported by the core, without registering the routes in the application. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/02-schema-shared`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: SecurityEngineer for authz, OAuth, secrets, and content guards; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds tool-access services/routes/tests plus the runtime service dependencies directly imported by the core, without registering the routes in the application. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - Focused server Vitest run — 4 files, 143 tests passed ## Risks - Authorization bugs could permit cross-company or over-broad tool access; the PR remains inert until PR 4 wiring and requires dedicated security review. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools enabled. ## 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [x] My branch name describes the change 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
58 lines
1.5 KiB
TypeScript
58 lines
1.5 KiB
TypeScript
import { sql } from "drizzle-orm";
|
|
import type { Db } from "@paperclipai/db";
|
|
import { toolRuntimeMetricCounters } from "@paperclipai/db";
|
|
|
|
export const TOOL_RUNTIME_AUDIT_WRITE_FAILURE_METRIC = "audit_write_failed";
|
|
|
|
function minuteBucket(date: Date): Date {
|
|
const bucket = new Date(date);
|
|
bucket.setSeconds(0, 0);
|
|
return bucket;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
export async function incrementToolRuntimeMetricCounter(
|
|
db: Db,
|
|
input: {
|
|
companyId: string;
|
|
metric: string;
|
|
at?: Date;
|
|
},
|
|
) {
|
|
const at = input.at ?? new Date();
|
|
await db
|
|
.insert(toolRuntimeMetricCounters)
|
|
.values({
|
|
companyId: input.companyId,
|
|
metric: input.metric,
|
|
bucketStartAt: minuteBucket(at),
|
|
count: 1,
|
|
createdAt: at,
|
|
updatedAt: at,
|
|
})
|
|
.onConflictDoUpdate({
|
|
target: [
|
|
toolRuntimeMetricCounters.companyId,
|
|
toolRuntimeMetricCounters.metric,
|
|
toolRuntimeMetricCounters.bucketStartAt,
|
|
],
|
|
set: {
|
|
count: sql`${toolRuntimeMetricCounters.count} + 1`,
|
|
updatedAt: at,
|
|
},
|
|
});
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
export async function recordToolRuntimeAuditWriteFailure(db: Db, companyId: string) {
|
|
try {
|
|
await incrementToolRuntimeMetricCounter(db, {
|
|
companyId,
|
|
metric: TOOL_RUNTIME_AUDIT_WRITE_FAILURE_METRIC,
|
|
});
|
|
} catch (error) {
|
|
console.error("[tool-runtime-metrics] Failed to record audit write failure counter", {
|
|
companyId,
|
|
error: error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error),
|
|
});
|
|
}
|
|
}
|