DottaandPaperclip
4173059081
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Mine shows a person's participation and requests that need their response. > - Automatic GitHub reviews should remain quiet until the assigned work needs human input. > - Review bots used completion requests to keep tasks in review while CI or a PR was still open. > - Those requests correctly entered Mine, despite the automatic-work filter from #16356. > - This pull request gives published reviews an existing provider-event wait in the in-review state and withdraws superseded completion requests. > - Real input requests and separate approval gates keep their current behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16356 Refs #13314 An advisory score below 5/5, pending or failed CI, or an unmerged PR does not by itself require a person's approval in Paperclip. The bot can track those conditions without adding a completion card to Mine. ## What Changed - Explain the quiet review lifecycle in the GitHub review instructions. Use a yielded provider-event wait, or an existing saved monitor, after publication. Report done when the configured completion conditions are met. - Keep a confirmed, published review in `in_review` during that wait. Reuse existing authorization and monitor delivery. Add no schema, timer, or polling loop. - Recognize the committed external wait in review attention and recovery. Shared execution receives a verified publication flag; GitHub receipt lookup stays with the GitHub module. Other chat waits keep their current status. - Withdraw an older system-created completion request only when the same bot has published both reviews and its new report has no attention request. Keep explicit cards, separate approval gates, and requests without the prior review evidence. Finish validation stays read-only; withdrawal commits atomically with the new status after checking current governance, the admitted result, and both low-risk contracts. - Update the product rule, capability maps, and regression coverage. ## Verification - Final commit `7c502118eec36028d1b4537bb8797ef893940bf0`: 54 GitHub checks passed, two intentionally skipped, none pending or failed. Greptile is 5/5, the security scan passed, and all review threads are resolved. - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Rechecked server typecheck and build after the final authorization guard. - Passed: 195 tests across `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts`, `status-arbiter.test.ts`, `review-instructions.test.ts`, and `issue-liveness.test.ts`. The database suite used an isolated PostgreSQL 18 container through `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL`. - Acceptance coverage: 3/5 stays in review outside Mine; 5/5 with pending completion conditions stays in review; 5/5 with satisfied conditions finishes quietly; a real repository-access request enters Mine until resolved. Also covers obsolete-card withdrawal, transaction rollback, rejected reports, separate approval gates, multiple reviewed heads, saved monitors, and revoked endpoints, repositories, or membership. - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, and `git diff --check`. - The initial acceptance run exposed a missing authenticated user in the test fixture. Added the user required by the existing addressee authorization check. All 154 tests in that database suite then passed, including the final rerun. - Review found premature withdrawal during validation, stale repository access, and a missed receipt when a run reviewed multiple heads. The revision fixes all three and includes acceptance regressions. The saved-monitor commit guard now accepts the verified published-review state. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted but could not complete on this Mac. Embedded PostgreSQL failed to allocate semaphores (`semget: No space left on device`); a direct initialization probe confirmed the host resource limit. The isolated database run proves the affected suite, not the full repository suite. - These tests exercise persisted review receipts, finalization, and Mine queries. They do not prove a live model followed the new instructions or submit a live GitHub review. ## Risks - The bot must follow the new lifecycle instructions. A real explicit attention request still enters Mine. - Existing obsolete cards are withdrawn when the same bot publishes a later review and reports no human dependency. This change does not run a bulk cleanup of historical inbox entries. - Review attention now recognizes an external response path. It requires an applied current status decision, a successful bound run, and current conversation, repository, and principal authorization. - No migration or UI change. The full local test suite is unverified because of the host database limit; CI passes on the final commit. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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 (195 focused tests; full-suite limitation above) - [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.
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 requires operator rollout admission, 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.
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.