mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-29 12:59:13 +01:00
## 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>
108 lines
5.7 KiB
Markdown
108 lines
5.7 KiB
Markdown
# 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.trustPreset` and
|
|
`permissions.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 `sandbox` driver
|
|
- 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.manage` tool 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.
|