mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 07:23:08 +02:00
81f47e70a6
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies > - Its agents and adapters need to resolve secrets through the same governed runtime path that checks ownership and company boundaries > - This change fixes a gap where user-scoped secret resolution could lose the acting-user context before adapter runtime startup > - Without that context, a required user secret could fail closed with responsible_user_missing even though an authenticated user was in scope > - This PR threads the acting user into the user-scoped secret resolution path and keeps the owner boundary explicit > - The benefit is adapter runtime setup can resolve the right credential without broadening access ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8309 (related: agent secret_ref env drift and binding context) No exact public GitHub issue for this specific behavior. ### Bug report - Problem: two agent-management routes resolved user-scoped secrets without an acting-user binding, so a required `user_secret_ref` could not be resolved before runtime. - Expected behavior: the authenticated acting user should be threaded into user-scoped secret resolution so the owning user secret can be selected safely. - Actual behavior: adapter startup paths failed closed with `responsible_user_missing` even though a user was already in scope. - Steps to reproduce: configure an adapter test-environment or login flow that depends on a user-scoped secret, then invoke it with an authenticated user context that does not carry the acting-user binding into runtime secret resolution. - Impact: the adapter test-environment probe and login path cannot start, so the runtime never reaches the work it was supposed to do. ## What Changed - Added an actor secret-context helper so the server can derive responsible-user context without inventing config-path or binding allowlists. - Added an explicit user-secret mediation mode for runtime config resolution, with an owner-scoped path that resolves by definition plus owner boundary and fails closed when an allowlist is present. - Wired the adapter test-environment route to owner-scoped mediation with an audit-only consumer and kept claude-login on the declared path with its persisted agent identity. - Added and updated tests for the factory, owner-scoped resolver mode, and adapter route coverage. ## Verification - `tsc --noEmit` clean - Factory tests: `authz-secret-context` 5/5 - Service tests: `secrets-service-user-secret-owner-scoped` 5/5, including fail-closed allowlist coverage and company-secret non-regression - Route tests: `agents-adapter-config-user-secret` 5/5, including `responsible_user_missing` and `binding_missing` coverage - Regression suites: `agents` + `secrets` 194/194 ## Risks - A regression in the owner-scoped mediation path could accidentally loosen secret access if the audit consumer or allowlist guard changes. - The change depends on the server-derived responsible user; if auth context regresses, the system should fail closed with responsible_user_missing. - The new mediation mode adds a branch in runtime config resolution, so future changes need to keep declared-mode behavior intact. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 (Codex tool-use session) ## 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 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: Harold Kim <harold@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>