mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 01:27:09 +01:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. **What happened?** Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. **Expected behavior** Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test execution. ## 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
51 lines
1.9 KiB
TypeScript
51 lines
1.9 KiB
TypeScript
import { createHash } from "node:crypto";
|
|
import { describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
|
|
import incident from "./fixtures/watchdog-confirmation-incident-8bef17ef.json";
|
|
|
|
describe("historical watchdog confirmation incident fixture", () => {
|
|
it("reproduces the material stop fingerprint", () => {
|
|
const materialPayload = JSON.stringify({
|
|
version: incident.stopSnapshot.version,
|
|
companyId: incident.companyId,
|
|
watchedIssueId: incident.watchdogRun.watchedIssueId,
|
|
materialLeaves: incident.stopSnapshot.materialLeaves,
|
|
waitsByIssueId: incident.stopSnapshot.waitsByIssueId,
|
|
});
|
|
const fingerprint = `task_watchdog_stop:${createHash("sha256").update(materialPayload).digest("hex")}`;
|
|
|
|
expect(fingerprint).toBe(incident.watchdogRun.stopFingerprint);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("preserves why the watchdog could not resolve the board-only card", () => {
|
|
expect(incident.interactionAtStop).toMatchObject({
|
|
id: "8bef17ef-6df4-4e52-8333-f3a789580be0",
|
|
kind: "request_confirmation",
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
effectiveResolverPolicy: "board_only",
|
|
sourceRunId: incident.creatorRun.id,
|
|
});
|
|
expect(incident.watchdogAuthorizationAtStop.deniedOperations).toContain(
|
|
"resolve_board_only_or_security_sensitive_approvals",
|
|
);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("records manual acceptance without changing audit attribution or retaining a current wait", () => {
|
|
expect(incident.manualAcceptance).toMatchObject({
|
|
status: "accepted",
|
|
resolverPolicy: "board_only",
|
|
resolvedByAgentId: null,
|
|
resolvedByRunId: null,
|
|
});
|
|
expect(incident.manualAcceptance.resolvedByUserId).toBeTruthy();
|
|
expect(incident.descendantPathAtVerification.at(-1)).toMatchObject({
|
|
identifier: "PAP-17237",
|
|
status: "done",
|
|
});
|
|
expect(incident.verification).toEqual({
|
|
historicalInteractionStillPending: false,
|
|
historicalInteractionIsCurrentWait: false,
|
|
auditAttributionChanged: false,
|
|
});
|
|
});
|
|
});
|