DottaandPaperclip
50b932a142
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/78/changes/paperclip/78 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and human decisions. > - Onboarding asks the first agent to propose a task before it starts work. > - The first-task skill requires human acceptance before task creation. > - The native tool could create and schedule that task without acceptance. > - REST task creation had the same gap. > - This change checks saved acceptance in the shared creation transaction. > - Valid approvals and ordinary delegation keep their existing behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An agent could create a task from the canonical onboarding first task before the user accepted its proposal. A real journey caught this after the agent read the first-task skill. A local database regression reproduces the missing check in the native tool and both REST creation endpoints. **Expected behavior** New task creation must wait for saved human acceptance of the latest ordinary proposal. A different parent or a standalone task must not bypass that check. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Bind an authenticated agent run to a server-created onboarding first task. 2. Leave its proposal unaccepted. 3. Call native `create_task`, `POST /api/companies/:companyId/issues`, or `POST /api/issues/:issueId/children`. 4. Before this fix, creation succeeds. After this fix, it is denied before a child or wake is committed. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `3be54534c24fc279533ff421e62a77ad15b72954` before the fix. ## What Changed - Add a shared check for new task creation from an authenticated onboarding run. - Read the latest ordinary confirmation across both confirmation kinds under the source task lock. - Require a human card decision or validated conversational acceptance. Require the current revision for a saved plan. - Preserve ordinary delegation, committed replay, and dispatch recovery. - Add database regressions and update execution and onboarding map documentation. ## Verification - Real PostgreSQL regression before the fix: 17 failures and four passing approval/delegation controls. No skips. - Exact published source: 102 tests passed across admission, conversational confirmation, and project tools, including all 25 admission regressions. Real Linux PostgreSQL, no skips. - `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck` passed locally. - Map checks and `git diff --check` passed. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted locally. Existing suites failed because the host exhausted PostgreSQL semaphore sets. The remaining owned test process was stopped; its failed log is preserved. No unrelated database was stopped. Current-head Linux CI passed, including build, typecheck, and browser E2E. The first CI attempt lost runners; its evidence is preserved, and interrupted jobs passed one CI rerun. - The live Cloud attempt remains failed. Local tests do not qualify Cloud onboarding, artifact delivery, or native tracing. No deployment or model retry is part of this change. ## Risks A stricter creation check could reject a valid approval. Tests cover direct, conversational, checkbox, dismissed-card, and clock-skew cases. The check applies only to new tasks from the canonical onboarding run. It does not change existing task updates, execution policy, or wake recovery. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific serving 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.