DottaandPaperclip
0710c56842
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and the work they receive. > - Connected conversations save incoming requests before they can run. > - A request can remain queued when the previous turn finishes successfully. > - Task Retry sent that case through the failed-run retry guard, which rejected the successful run. > - This change resumes the saved request through its existing admission owner. > - The operator can continue saved work while preserving the prior result and current permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Task Retry returned a conflict for a restricted connected conversation when its latest run succeeded and newer input remained saved. A GitHub review can reach this state when a new PR head arrives during the previous review. The prior review cannot publish against the new head, but its completed turn is not a failed run that can be replayed. **Expected behavior** Retry should resume the saved request with its original source identity and current authorization. It must preserve the previous successful result and must not replay that turn. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a review through a restricted GitHub endpoint. 2. Send a PR synchronize event while that review runs and retain its deferred input receipt. 3. Let the original run finish successfully with the task still open. 4. Click Retry. Before this change, the failed-run guard rejects the request. With this change, the saved input creates one successor through normal admission. Related work: #17725, #16965, #15033. ## What Changed - Select the newest saved input by its canonical chat action and wake receipt. - Store its receipt ID in the task retry intent and resume it through the existing chat owner. - Preserve caller permissions, source authorization, task state, agent state, cleanup waits, and duplicate-click handling. - Exclude saved-input intents from generic board-message replay. Keep board messages in separate queued receipts and allow independently saved input after successful board turns. - Add signed webhook, HTTP endpoint, accepted-result preservation, and refusal tests. Update execution semantics and capability maps. Stabilize the existing Teams lifecycle test with explicit database result ordering. ## Verification - Current-head [CI passes](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41482727909): 54 successful checks, one neutral review, three expected skips, and a successful Snyk status. Greptile gives commit `53f02e9105` 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. - Reproduced the original HTTP 409 before the fix. Reproduced both review findings with three failing cases before fixing them. - Passed 25 focused and related GitHub retry cases, 52 ordinary queue tests, and three native startup cases against disposable PostgreSQL. Earlier related verification also passed 83 GitHub retry cases and 109 recovery/receipt cases. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and the module boundary check. The final server typecheck passed after the review fixes. - The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt stopped on an existing Slack queue deadline assertion with a 1 ms database/host clock difference. That case passed in isolation. A second attempt was stopped when review changes superseded its source. Full local completion is not claimed; all chat, server, browser, build, and runner CI jobs passed on the final commit. - The runner CI job needed one rerun after a two-second startup timing assertion failed. That case and its two related cases passed locally; the rerun passed without code changes. - Live GitHub review publication with this patch is not verified. The signed provider fixture uses mocked GitHub responses. This branch is not deployed. ## Risks - This changes how Retry dispatches deferred external input after a successful run. It relies on the existing inbound owner to recheck source authority before execution. - Tests cover paused connections and agents, changed source bindings, completed tasks, pending cleanup, duplicate clicks, and preservation of the accepted result. - No schema migration or public API shape change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. The exact deployed 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 - [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.