mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
9786f6df56
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Runner sends authorized tool calls to the control plane. > - Agents use these calls to save plans and instruction files. > - The Runner used diagnostic secret detection to reject execution arguments. > - Ordinary credential-related prose could reject a document save before persistence. > - This pull request forwards the original arguments and leaves credential policy to the provider harness. > - The benefit is reliable saves with useful diagnostic records. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related foundation: Refs #12415 and #14430. No duplicate save-policy fix was found. **What happened?** A `write_document` call failed before the server saved its plan. The Runner reported `semantic tool input contains credential material; refusing to execute altered arguments`. The detector also masked ordinary phrases such as `secret manager` and `credential handling` in diagnostics. Both TypeScript dispatchers had equivalent execution gates. One dispatcher also rewrote structured approval and question payloads before execution. **Expected behavior** Paperclip forwards authorized arguments unchanged. The provider harness decides credential-content policy. Log and audit redaction does not reject or rewrite save input. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Send an authorized `write_document` call with a plan that discusses credential handling. 2. Include an intentional credential value in the body to exercise harness-owned policy. 3. The old Runner rejects the call. With this change, the document service stores the exact body. 4. Diagnostic records still mask explicit credential values. Qualified credential fields, short bearer values, opaque diagnostic pairs, and valid encoded JSON token headers have regression coverage. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced at `c46e41e81c03cd3c8b64cf993615b604d7fe8c62`. The branch is based on current `master`. **Deployment mode** Server deployment with the native Paperclip Runner. Local regression tests use the real document service and an embedded test database. ## What Changed - Remove credential-content vetoes from Rust admission and both TypeScript semantic dispatchers. - Preserve original structured approval and question arguments during execution. - Keep transport bounds, schema checks, authorization, idempotency, and audit masking. - Require explicit credential syntax or recognized formats for diagnostic masking. Preserve ordinary prose, metadata, and dotted identifiers. - Test exact document persistence, replay, nested argument identities, and masked audit copies. - Remove obsolete retry guidance and document harness-owned credential policy. ## Verification - `cargo test --manifest-path packages/paperclip-runner/runner/Cargo.toml --locked -p paperclip-runner-core --lib --test acpx_event_payload --test acpx_provider_state --test acpx_provider_turns`: 355 tests passed. - Focused server and adapter tests: 189 tests passed after rebase. These include the real document save and the complete tool-gateway suite. - Semantic dispatcher and conformance tests: 34 tests passed. - Diagnostic redaction and MCP tests: 46 tests passed, including all six review examples. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the repaired branch. - The broad local root suite was interrupted after database fixture setup failures. The focused database suites passed. CI runs the complete configured test lanes. ## Risks - Authorized tool arguments can intentionally contain credentials. The harness must enforce its content policy. - Diagnostic detection is narrower. Explicit assignments, credential fields, and recognized credential formats remain masked. - The change does not add a database migration or change company authorization. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The session exposes the GPT-6 model family; its exact runtime model identifier and context window size are not exposed. Used reasoning, tool use, 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>