Nicky LeachandPaperclip
835966dec8
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/1/changes/paperclip/1 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their execution environments. > - New agent setup saves an inactive agent before model connection tests. > - Some plugins need that agent to prepare its execution resource. > - The wizard tested without the agent ID, while the setup hold prevented preparation. > - Environment changes also discarded the selected model account. > - This change prepares the saved draft during setup and keeps normal execution held. > - Users can test the prepared resource before they finish hiring. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An agent-owned plugin environment could not acquire a test lease during hiring. Changing environments also returned the user to Connect and cleared the selected account. **Expected behavior** Keep the selected account, invalidate its test, and prepare the saved agent resource in the background. Test that same agent before finishing setup. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a new Claude or Codex agent and select a saved account. 2. Change to an agent-owned plugin environment. 3. Try to finish setup or reconnect the account. Related: #17750 defers probes until after hire submission. This change implements preparation during the wizard instead. The related PR search and ROADMAP review found no other implementation of this setup preparation path. ## What Changed - Add the optional `requiresAgent` driver declaration. Require agent lifecycle participation when it is set. - Prepare saved drafts on creation or environment changes. Keep the setup hold and wait in `verifying` without background verification scans. - Bind tests to the saved agent. Return a warning without allocating a lease when the required agent is absent or still preparing. - Preserve the account and configuration step when the environment changes. Save the selection and invalidate the old test. - Show active preparation and support authorized retries. Keep approval, company, budget, and normal task admission controls. - Document the contract and cover lifecycle, lease, manifest, and wizard behavior. ## Verification - Server and UI TypeScript checks passed. - 112 wizard and setup helper tests passed. The shared manifest suite passed. - 123 lifecycle, policy, lease, and environment-test API cases passed after the approval-gate fix. The diagnostic and driver suites and all 80 agent adapter route tests also passed. - Token gates, module boundaries, map validation, and whitespace checks passed. - All 66 lifecycle/policy cases passed after the stopping-draft permission fix. The new real-DB route case verifies creator success, other-creator denial, and refusal to complete a hire while stopping. - Full workspace typecheck and build were attempted. Both stop at the unchanged Rust Runner step because Cargo is not installed on this host. - CI on43be3c93dpassed all automated checks, including full test shards, typecheck, build, Rust checks, browser suites, and canary checks: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40368174530. - The full local repository test command was started. Two unchanged workspace tests assume Git's initial branch is master; this host defaults to main. Both fail in isolation under the host default and pass with process-scoped init.defaultBranch=master. The broad run was stopped after those confirmed fixture failures; CI supplies the full clean check. - Early new-test failures were fixture collisions and an unscoped sweep assertion; the fixtures and assertion were corrected. One route-suite load raced with SDK output regeneration; rebuilding first and running the suite afterward passed. - Initial CI exposed a route mock missing the new prerequisite lookup. The fixture was updated and a real HTTP no-lease case was added; all 54 cases in that route suite pass. Security review identified allocation before required approval; the new approval gate and its tests address it. - CI on50b5a08afreported 32 of 33 expected calls in the unchanged cleanup-history scheduling test. Its isolated case passed locally without cleanup-code changes; the original failure remains recorded and the final CI run passes on the current head. - Standard Greptile reviewed43be3c93dat 5/5. A subsequent deeper review identified runner selection, stale detail reads, error retention, and test file size issues; 70343387b addresses all four with resolved threads. Standard review returned 5/5 on that commit and again on rebased headfda42c5ab. The rebase preserves master's new managed environment skill declarations alongside requiresAgent. Full CI onfda42c5abpasses: 55 successful checks, two intentional skips, no failures. Run: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40405121641. - After those fixes, 133 UI tests and 61 lifecycle/policy cases pass; all eight focused UI regressions fail against the previous implementation and pass with the fix. Token, map, and whitespace gates pass. The stale-read fixture initially omitted the setup URL because navigation is mocked; following the URL activates the real detail query and reproduces the race. - UI TypeScript passes. This host's server dependency links now point to a separate scratch checkout lacking requiresAgent, so the ordinary server check reports that missing property. A no-emit check pinned to this branch's shared declarations passes; it disables declaration generation and supplies explicit local type roots. The first temporary configuration lacked those type roots; the corrected configuration passes. CI remains the full workspace verification. - After rebasing onto8373d7867, all 133 UI, 61 lifecycle/policy, and 44 manifest cases pass again, as do UI TypeScript, token, map, and whitespace checks. The server no-emit check now hits three mismatched SDK/Runner declarations from the scratch dependency links; these are outside this change. Full CI builds the complete dependency set. - Review cycle: the first Apex review scored 3/5 with four findings. All were fixed together, the branch was rebased to resolve a schema conflict, full CI and standard Greptile passed, and a second Apex review returned 5/5 onfda42c5abwith zero new comments. All six review threads are resolved, and the PR is conflict-free. Review: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17761#issuecomment-6422635718. - No live provider resource was created and no deployment was performed. ## Risks Plugins must opt in and ship a compatible declaration. Companies requiring hire approval keep drafts paused and defer allocation and verification until approval. Other companies prepare drafts during the wizard under their existing agent-creation authority; the setup hold still blocks ordinary work. Preparation uses existing lifecycle ownership, retry, and cleanup paths. The open wizard polls only while preparation or stopping is active. No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window size are 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 described the issue in-PR using the bug report fields - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run the targeted tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip gates are green — 55 successful checks and two intentional skips onfda42c5ab- [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 requires operator rollout admission, 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.
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.