DottaandPaperclip
86b365f992
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need to inspect configuration and instructions when they set up teammates. > - Configuration reads currently depend on configure or suggestion grants. > - Legacy standard agents did not receive those newer grants. Some self-read routes also lose the target agent identity. > - This pull request adds an independent read grant and applies only that grant to eligible existing agents. > - The benefit is that agents can inspect and verify configuration without new write authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15283. Related earlier proposals: #8064 and #12050. Those proposals target older authorization code; this change uses the current configure/suggest model and adds a read-only rollout for existing agents. Related bounded peer metadata proposal: #14160. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Agent configuration, configured skill, instruction, and revision reads through the existing APIs and native instruction tools. **Current behavior** An agent needs `agents:configure` or `agents:suggest-changes` to inspect a peer. Older standard agents can hire a teammate but cannot verify the saved instructions. Configuration and revision routes also reject self-reads because they authorize a company resource instead of the target agent. **Proposed behavior** Add `agents:read` for redacted configuration and instruction reads. Keep `agents:configure` as read/write and preserve suggestion-grant compatibility. Standard new agents receive the read grant. A one-time migration grants only reads to eligible existing standard agents. Individual routes authorize the target agent and grant scope. **Reason and benefit** Read access can be granted without configuration changes, rollback, or environment probes. Legacy agents can verify teammates without receiving new write permissions. ## What Changed - Add `agents:read` to the shared permission contract and standard-agent defaults. - Accept read, configure, or suggestion grants for configuration reads, with target scope and the responsible-user ceiling. - Fix target-aware self and scoped configuration, skill, and revision reads. - Add an audited data migration. Skip low-trust, built-in, inactive, pending, terminated, setup, and scoped configuration/suggestion cases. Preserve existing read scopes and later revocation. - Update the specifications, default-permission documentation, and agent access map. ## Verification - Focused acceptance: 276 tests passed across seven suites on commit `a37314df88`: authorization, real-key HTTP access, route authorization, canonical instructions, default grants, migration replay, and lifecycle configuration. - The HTTP journey uses a real hashed agent API key and a disposable PostgreSQL database. It verifies redaction, scoped reads, denied edits and rollback, cross-company isolation, and both agent and responsible-user revocation. - New read-grant regressions failed before the authorization change. A realistic paused/pausing/resuming migration fixture also failed before the lifecycle filter correction and passed afterward. Setup-held paused agents stay excluded. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the rebased branch; the final lifecycle migration correction also passed the database package typecheck and build. The latest commit changes only a test assertion. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check` passed. - Full current-head [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41641531426) passed: typecheck, build, all general and serialized test lanes, Runner checks, all eight browser shards, canary dry run, policy, and aggregate gates. The local full-suite attempt was stopped after exposing the outdated cross-company 403 assertion; interrupted local full-suite attempts are not counted as passes. ## Risks The migration deliberately expands redacted configuration and instruction visibility for eligible existing standard agents in the same company. An absent older write grant does not deny the new read capability. It adds no write grant. Scoped configure/suggestion grants and all existing read-grant scopes stay intact. Administrators can remove the independent read grant after the one-time rollout; ordinary updates and startup do not restore it. Configure and suggestion grants still imply reads within their own scopes. Cross-company configuration/history reads now return 404 through the common target-aware helper. No schema change or credential-value disclosure is added. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The host does not expose a more specific runtime 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.