DottaandPaperclip
7eea9d8214
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A GitHub bot can send a pull request to an agent and publish its review. > - Each bot has its own GitHub App identity, but every summary currently starts with "Paperclip Review". > - A generic heading makes it harder to identify reviewers when several bots review the same pull request. > - This pull request uses the bot display name in review summary headings. > - Users can identify each reviewer while required checks keep their existing name. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The heading of a GitHub bot's published pull request review summary. **Current behavior** Every summary uses "Paperclip Review", regardless of the bot's name. The check also uses "Paperclip Review" and must keep that name for existing branch rules. **Proposed behavior** Complete and incomplete review summary headings use the GitHub bot display name. The heading falls back to the bot login, then the assigned agent name, when old connections have no display name. Separate GitHub Apps keep independent checks with the same name. **Reason and benefit** Readers can identify each bot's review. A regression test confirms that publishing a review does not update a check owned by another App or endpoint. **Breaking changes** The summary heading changes. Consumers that parse the old heading must accept bot names. No API, prompt configuration, database schema, or check name changes are included. No duplicate PR was found in the GitHub bot title search. ROADMAP.md does not contain a duplicate of this change. ## What Changed - Use the bot display name in complete and incomplete review headings. - Escape Markdown in names and fall back to the bot login or agent name. - Verify the heading through the publication workflow and keep check updates scoped to the App and endpoint. - Document bot-named summaries and independent checks. Update both access maps. ## Verification - Focused policy, heading, and existing UI tests: 67 passed. - Database-backed regression cases: 2 passed, including bot-name publication and independent checks. - Map checks, token gates, and git diff --check passed. - Typecheck and build passed on the final rebased branch. The final focused run passed 44 tests; the two database-backed regression cases also passed in a separate run. All final-head CI checks passed, including full test suites, build, typecheck, E2E, and security scans. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. No review threads remain unresolved. ## Risks - Consumers that parse the old summary heading must accept bot names. - The GitHub check remains Paperclip Review. Multiple-bot check isolation was tested with provider fixtures; a live two-bot GitHub test was not run for this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact backend model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, and code 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 (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>
6.4 KiB
External chat and email conversations — agent access
Product map: External chat and email conversations.
Review date: 2026-10-12. Source commit: 58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b.
Native REST transport reconciled in this change; see the
shared transport contract.
This is a source-reviewed baseline of representative operations and known gaps. Each capability needs operation-level review before its entire scope can be qualified. No live agent execution is claimed. Follow the map contract for format, permission checks, evidence and maintenance.
providers
Review: baseline.
API: present — representative operation IDs:
POST /api/companies/{companyId}/chat-endpoints.
Agent access: restricted — Board setup APIs; native connection request can ask for
setup.
Policy: Endpoint management/identity linking requires a board user; delivery is server-owned and agent tools use scoped assignments.
Evidence: source-only — implementation
at the reviewed commit above.
Verification: not-run — assert the documented agent denial with an owned test fixture;
verify any listed agent request/result path separately. A delegated operation needs its
own policy and access review.
Gaps: Provider installation and account enrollment are not available to an ordinary agent actor.
identity
Review: baseline.
API: present — representative operation IDs:
POST /api/chat-identity-links/confirm.
Agent access: restricted — Human identity-link flow.
Policy: Endpoint management/identity linking requires a board user; delivery is server-owned and agent tools use scoped assignments.
Evidence: source-only — implementation
at the reviewed commit above.
Verification: not-run — assert the documented agent denial with an owned test fixture;
verify any listed agent request/result path separately. A delegated operation needs its
own policy and access review.
Gaps: Identity linking requires a signed-in board user, rollout admission and
provider checks at the HTTP route. Native call_api preserves these permissions.
conversation
Review: baseline.
API: present — representative operation IDs:
POST /api/chat-endpoints/{endpointId}/conversations/{conversationId}/publications.
Agent access: partial — Assigned-agent reply pipeline; native completion; provider
tools where assigned.
Policy: Endpoint management/identity linking requires a board user; delivery is server-owned and agent tools use scoped assignments.
Evidence: source-only — implementation
at the reviewed commit above.
Verification: not-run — exercise a listed permitted operation with actual agent
credentials/run context; inspect its result and applicable persistence/attribution.
Assert the relevant denied actor, owner, company or mode from Policy. Review the
remaining operations before qualifying the whole capability.
Gaps: Normal agent replies work through server delivery. Explicit endpoint publication APIs are board management paths.
Slack's Require at-mention policy applies to channel messages and channel thread replies, including queued work. DMs are exempt from mention checks; endpoint availability, Allow direct messages, and sender authorization still apply. Top-level DM replies retain their linear conversation destination. Source: admission and queued run policy. Live Slack verification of this exemption remains separate from provider-fixture coverage.
New conversations resolve typed project/workspace defaults from their endpoint and destination under the task-creation transaction. Defaults do not authorize private sources: admission checks the linked user's authority and assigned agent. An existing conversation keeps its task binding. See creation service and defaults contract.
attachments
Review: baseline.
API: present — representative operation IDs:
GET /api/issues/{id}/attachments.POST /api/companies/{companyId}/issues/{issueId}/attachments.
Agent access: partial — Native register_deliverable / attachment tools when admitted;
agent REST; server-owned delivery.
Policy: Endpoint management/identity linking requires a board user; delivery is server-owned and agent tools use scoped assignments.
Evidence: source-only — implementation
at the reviewed commit above.
Verification: not-run — exercise a listed permitted operation with actual agent
credentials/run context; inspect its result and applicable persistence/attribution.
Assert the relevant denied actor, owner, company or mode from Policy. Review the
remaining operations before qualifying the whole capability.
Gaps: Uploading/registering is supported. Provider delivery status and board replay are separate operations.
lifecycle
Review: baseline.
API: present — representative operation IDs:
GET /api/chat-endpoints/{endpointId}/activity.PATCH /api/chat-endpoints/{endpointId}.PUT /api/chat-endpoints/{endpointId}/resourcesconfigures destination defaults.
Agent access: restricted — Board lifecycle APIs; agent requests repair when blocked.
Policy: Endpoint management/identity linking requires a board user; delivery is server-owned and agent tools use scoped assignments.
Evidence: source-only — implementation
at the reviewed commit above.
Verification: not-run — assert the documented agent denial with an owned test fixture;
verify any listed agent request/result path separately. A delegated operation needs its
own policy and access review.
Gaps: Activity/repair/replay/disable use board endpoint access, not the agent's ability to reply.
Endpoint/destination execution defaults use the same board-only management boundary. Agents select an authorized workspace for their current task through the workspace APIs, rather than editing channel configuration.
GitHub review summary headings use the bot display name. Checks remain independently scoped by GitHub App and endpoint/PR/commit identity.