## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Low-trust review contains work that may include hostile input. > - Its default intake boundary currently blocks direct human chat and tasks outside that boundary. > - Human direction should authorize the assigned work while preserving containment. > - Existing conversations and execution requests already identify direct human instructions. > - This pull request derives exact-task authority from those records and the current assignee. > - The agent can perform that work without gaining access to unrelated tasks or privileged tools. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A low-trust agent with a project boundary rejects its owner's direct Agent Chat before provider execution. Human-assigned tasks outside that project fail the same check. **Expected behavior** An authorized human can talk to the agent or assign it a task. The exact task runs with its existing sandbox, credential, and tool restrictions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Agent Chat and isolated workspaces. Configure a sandbox agent with low-trust review scoped to an intake project. 2. Send the agent a direct board chat message, or assign it a projectless task. 3. Observe `low_trust_boundary_mismatch` before execution. Related: #14766 adds private task directories for repo-free low-trust execution. It is now merged into master and included in the branch base, so CI and staging verify the combined behavior. ## What Changed - Derive owner-chat access from existing conversation identity. - Derive exact-task access from the existing human requester and server-owned request origin, including coalesced requests. Plugin and external sender attribution do not authorize work. - Follow existing `retryOfRunId` database links for automatic continuations, checking company, agent, and task throughout; cancelled ancestors cannot grant authority. - Require a live run and current assignment. Preserve sandbox, credential, privileged-tool, responsible-user, and quarantined-output checks. - Retain board backlog assignments in existing request records without starting execution. Reassignment cancels old human requests in the common service transaction, including plugin writes; late settlement cannot revive them. - Add real database and HTTP coverage for request provenance, retry ancestry, cancelled runs, concurrent reassignment, spoofing, and containment. Document the rule. - Preserve legacy board assignment requests through their existing source, reason, and human requester. - Use the existing wrapped-error helper for concurrent chat-question idempotency; a deterministic race test reproduces the CI failure before the fix and passes after it. - No new schema, migrations, or user-identity fields. Existing requester columns hold attribution. ## Verification - Passed the focused database, policy-retention, HTTP, and reassignment tests locally. The HTTP test creates a task through the real board route and checks the resulting persisted wakeup before exercising agent reads, comments, mutations, and review handoff. - Database tests hold a reassignment transaction open to verify coherent authorization before and after commit, with a two-connection pool. They cover retries, coalesced requests, cancelled ancestry, invalid cross-company/agent/task links, cycles, and forged attribution. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the final commit (`d107c26df`). [Latest-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36815589542) passed: 54 successful checks, two expected skips, including all eight browser-test shards. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved threads. Local tests were targeted; the full test suite ran through CI’s test matrix. - The revised HTTP suite passed all 13 tests; database authorization tests passed all 11, including legacy compatibility and late watchdog settlement; the backlog route contract passed all 3 tests. Another 102 tests covering durable chat admission, wake queues, and Cursor execution passed. - All 90 interaction-service tests passed with both create calls deliberately held until their optimistic reads complete, forcing duplicate-key recovery. That forced race failed before switching to the shared wrapped-error helper. - Previous staging proof covered owner chat and projectless task persistence. The simplified revision has not been redeployed; that earlier proof is not claimed for the new implementation. ## Risks - This is an authorization change: only the live run's exact task qualifies, and normal responsible-user restrictions still apply. - Existing request and retry records are authoritative. Merely naming a responsible/originating user or an external connector sender does not qualify. - Reassignment invalidates existing human request records transactionally. A cancelled run or request cannot regain authority when the task is assigned back. - Ordinary task exceptions require server-owned origin or the legacy board assignment source/reason/actor combination. Existing owner chats use conversation identity. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The runtime does not expose a more specific 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>
5.7 KiB
Low-Trust Presets
Paperclip ships core trust preset names so containment decisions are enforced in Community Edition even when EE policy editing is unavailable.
Presets
standard: the default V1 company-visible collaboration model. This preserves existing behavior for normal agents.low_trust_review: an opt-in containment preset for automated work that may consume hostile or prompt-injected input, such as untrusted pull requests, external tickets, dependency diffs, or generated review output.
Boundary Model
low_trust_review is resolved from existing JSON policy fields:
- agent permissions:
permissions.trustPresetandpermissions.authorizationPolicy.trustBoundary - project policy:
executionWorkspacePolicy.authorizationPolicy.trustBoundary - issue/run policy:
executionPolicy.authorizationPolicy.trustBoundary
The resolver intersects those sources. Narrower wins. A low-trust preset must resolve to a concrete company-local project, root issue, or issue-id scope. If a policy source names another company, uses an unsupported preset, or lacks that scope for risky access, Paperclip fails closed.
Containment, Not Privacy
This is containment for hostile automated work. It is not a general project, issue, or human privacy system.
V1 standard work remains company-visible by default: board users and in-company actors can inspect company work objects unless a separate access-control feature changes that behavior. Low-trust containment instead limits what the low-trust agent can read or mutate through the Paperclip API and prevents raw untrusted output from being automatically promoted into higher-trust agent context.
Low-trust agents cannot read or mutate agent configuration, instruction bundles, or company skill configuration through direct grants. Configuration changes from low-trust work must go through higher-trust review and promotion paths instead.
Human-directed work
An authenticated board user can talk to a low-trust agent in their own Agent Chat or assign it a task outside its default intake boundary. Existing conversation identity authorizes owner chat. Ordinary tasks use the human requester already recorded on the run's wakeup requests, including coalesced requests. Each request retains its server-owned origin; plugin-attributed users do not count as board instructions. Legacy board assignment requests remain valid through their existing assignment source, reason, and human requester, without trusting old plugin human attribution. A board backlog assignment is retained as a completed assignment request with no run, so it authorizes the later system launch without starting work prematurely. No separate permission table or client-supplied human identity is needed. Responsible-user attribution, external connector sender attribution, and agent claims do not qualify.
At dispatch and API authorization, Paperclip checks the live run and current assignment in one database snapshot. The exception permits reading, commenting on, and updating only that run's exact task. It does not extend to another task, a child, a whole project, configuration, instructions, secrets, or runtime management. Normal responsible-user checks still apply. The exception is never stored in the inherited trust boundary.
Automatic retries and continuations follow the existing retryOfRunId database
links, checking the same company, agent, and task at every step. Cancelled runs
cannot authorize a retry. The common assignment transaction cancels prior human
requests, including plugin and service reassignments. Assigning the task back
cannot revive those requests, and late run settlement cannot undo cancellation. Sandbox and
isolated workspace requirements still apply, as do malformed-policy and
company-boundary checks.
Child→Parent Reporting Under Containment
The direct-parent report comment (doc/execution-semantics.md §6, "Child→Parent
Reporting") is off by default for low_trust_review: a contained run reads
untrusted input, so a free-prose comment into the higher-trust parent thread is
a prompt-injection promotion path. Contained reviewers report by completing
their own review issue (done — the verdict is the deliverable; the
issue_blockers_resolved wake carries it upward) and by the platform's
system-attributed stop-only relay when they enter blocked or cancelled.
Never instruct a contained delegate to comment on its parent issue.
Runtime Containment
Managed low_trust_review runs fail closed unless Paperclip can enforce the
runtime boundary:
- the selected execution environment must use the
sandboxdriver - the effective execution workspace mode must be
isolated_workspace - the issue being run must be inside the resolved low-trust boundary or be the exact human-directed task described above
- secret references must use binding ids explicitly allowed by the boundary
- inline sensitive environment values such as API keys and tokens are rejected
- workspace runtime-service mutations are denied unless the boundary explicitly
grants the
runtime.managetool class
When the task's project has no configured workspace and no layer specifies a workspace strategy, sandbox execution uses a private directory for that company and task. The directory persists across turns and reassignment and never imports the shared project directory or agent home. No Git repository is required for this case. Configured workspaces and explicit Git strategies keep their existing validation; a missing or broken checkout does not fall back to an empty directory.
The Docker workflow in doc/UNTRUSTED-PR-REVIEW.md remains useful for manual
local review, but Paperclip-managed low-trust execution requires a sandboxed
environment instead of a host-local adapter process.