DottaandPaperclip
b14e1ecaf8
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/175/changes/paperclip/175 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators configure each agent through several settings tabs. > - Operators also need one complete, editable configuration document. > - The document must retain each resource service's access and validation rules. > - This pull request defines the `paperclip/v1` Agent YAML format and adds an Advanced editor. > - The editor previews changes, rejects stale core writes, and explains partial saves. > - Operators can edit agent settings in one place and verify the saved state after reload. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #2219. Related settings work: #10974. **Problem or motivation** Agent configuration spans profile, runtime, instructions, skills, tools, channels, permissions, secrets, keys, and revision history. Operators cannot inspect and edit those settings as one versioned YAML document. **Proposed solution** Add an Advanced agent tab with a YAML editor. Define a shared document schema. Read and write resources through their existing APIs. Separate editable settings, explicit commands, and read-only observed state. **Alternatives considered** A raw agent-row editor would omit related resources. A generic database update would bypass resource ownership. The editor therefore uses the existing resource contracts and records partial results when a later request fails. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the shipped agent configuration capability. It relates to easy AGENTS.md configuration, multi-harness teams, governed tool access, and secrets management. Stored credentials remain redacted. This format is an editable settings view; it does not add company portability or provider consent. ## What Changed - Add the `paperclip/v1` Agent document schema and format documentation. - Add the Advanced route, sidebar entry, YAML editor, validation, change summary, save progress, and reload recovery. - Cover core settings, instruction files, skill pins, tool installs/profiles/policies, channels, permissions, secret operations, API keys, and revision restore. - Add private-keyed configuration revisions checked under the agent write lock. Read the current key through its owner so file-based rotation does not require restarting the server. Preserve unchanged secret markers at their original paths. - Retain drafts and returned credentials after partial saves. Require reload before retrying commands. Prevent duplicate submissions. Keep new key tokens visible through rename and disable saves with an empty change plan. - Send only changed channel settings. Require explicit intent for shared profile edits. Load destination instruction files when changing their location. - Update Storybook fixtures, verification maps, and regression tests. Add browser acceptance through real APIs and PostgreSQL. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - The focused UI suite passes all 50 tests. The API/revision helper suites pass all 93 tests. - All 65 lifecycle tests pass with a dedicated PostgreSQL database. They exercise real row locks, redaction, revision history, audit, and company access. - All six browser acceptance cases pass. They check saved settings and clears, secret redaction, key creation/revocation, stale drafts, lost-response recovery, instruction relocation, revision restore, and key-token retention through rename. The tests use real resource APIs and storage. The MCP target uses the existing local provider fixture. No model run or provider login is claimed. - Signing-key regressions cover both environment changes and real in-place key-file rotation. The protected database save/fencing cases pass after removing the cache. A local measurement of 1,000 file-backed revision calculations took 48 ms. - `pnpm check:token-gates`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and Storybook catalog checks pass. - The full [PR CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40725425470) passes on `34ed97bbf9`: all 48 jobs, including all eight browser shards. Greptile is 5/5 on this commit, with no unresolved review threads. This final commit refreshes CI after a runner-routing fallback; its source tree matches `fb4cf488cf`. - Paperclip Review and Superagent Security Scan ended neutral because their external agents did not complete a valid assessment/receipt. Superagent passed on `fb4cf488cf`, which has the identical source tree. One request to retry the final scan returned HTTP 404. Neither check reports a code finding. - The local full-suite attempt was blocked by host System V semaphore exhaustion. Acceptance and lifecycle verification used an isolated PostgreSQL 18 container. Earlier CI runners were interrupted. A local combined run hit hook/test timeouts; the full 88-test route file passed after the builds finished. The final full CI run passes. Earlier failure logs and browser traces remain retained outside the repository. To run the browser regression: ```sh pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/agent-configuration.spec.ts ``` ## Risks - Multi-resource saves are sequential. Earlier operations can remain saved if a later operation fails. The editor reports the completed steps and requires reload. - Core settings and managed instruction files have atomic revision/hash checks. Other unversioned resource writes and external supporting files retain a race window after preflight. - Shared profile definitions affect other bindings. The editor requires `updateSharedDefinition: true` for those edits. - The editor follows native service normalization and experimental settings. Canonical reload can add generated access profiles or mask environment values. - New editor dependencies require the repository's normal automated lockfile update. This pull request does not edit the lockfile or add a database migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact current model version was not exposed. The work used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser automation. Earlier work in this chat used the configured Codex model before a model switch; its exact model ID and context window were not exposed. The current context window size is also not exposed. ## 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.