DottaandPaperclip
36df8933f0
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Slack chat connections let people start and continue work with an
agent.
> - Managed setup reuses a personal Slack workspace authorization to
create and install the bot.
> - The provisioning route passed that Slack grant ID to the generic
tool-grant lookup.
> - A valid workspace therefore failed with a 404 before provisioning
started.
> - This pull request selects the existing Slack grant resolver for
provisioning and validates the request-body ID.
> - The benefit is that saved Slack setup can continue while company and
personal ownership checks remain enforced.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #15679, which introduced managed Slack setup.
**What happened?**
Continuing a saved managed Slack draft returned `Connection management
resource not found`. The workspace list and endpoint read both
succeeded. The provisioning POST returned 404.
**Expected behavior**
Continue should use the selected personal Slack manager grant and create
or resume the bot once.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Authorize a Slack workspace for managed bot setup.
2. Create or resume a managed Slack chat connection.
3. Select the saved workspace and choose Continue.
## What Changed
- Select the Slack manager-grant resolver for the managed provisioning
route.
- Accept a validated grant ID from the route parameter or request body.
Enforce the current user's ownership for both board and agent requests.
- Run the existing duplicate-install regression through the HTTP route.
Add HTTP rejection cases for missing, malformed, foreign-company and
other-user grants.
- Document the grant boundary and update the matching feature and
agent-access maps.
The shared authorization guard owns resource resolution and company
checks. Its existing Slack resolver previously handled only the
revocation route parameter. This change extends that resolver to the
provisioning body's grant ID. Generic tool-grant resolution and
deployments without managed Slack keep their existing path.
## Verification
- Before the fix, the HTTP installation regression failed with the same
404 as the browser walkthrough.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'managed
Slack'` — 31 passed. Uses real PostgreSQL, production routes and
provider fixtures. The board actor is a fixture; this does not qualify
live Slack or agent authentication.
- `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` — passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` — passed. Full local Vitest is
running. [All CI gates
passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41561466277)
for commit c04b426e60. Greptile and
Paperclip reviews are 5/5 with no required changes. Deployed Slack
acceptance remains pending.
## Risks
- Low risk. The guard must select the correct grant registry. Tests
cover valid ownership, duplicate requests and rejected IDs.
- Board requests now receive the ownership denial in the guard. The
Slack service already required the same owner.
- No schema, credential format, provider scope or runtime transport
changes.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository editing, browser
use and command execution. The runtime does not expose a more precise
model ID or context-window size.
## 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>
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.