DottaandPaperclip
585b4e6af8
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks and governed execution. > - Connected conversations retain the source and authority for each request. > - Task Retry pins the full saved GitHub input batch before it waits for cleanup. > - Resuming that wait could append an independent board queue after authorization. > - Dispatch then rejected the changed batch before the provider started. > - This pull request keeps the authorized batch intact and restores certified undelivered input from historical failed attempts. > - Each board message retains a separate turn and its own admission checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A deferred GitHub task Retry could consume a separate board message while promoting its saved receipt. The new run then failed with `chat_failed_run_retry_not_authorized`. A second Retry could also fail because the historical run retained the mixed batch. **Expected behavior** Retry must preserve the source batch it authorized. Separate board input must keep its own execution path. Historical input may be restored only when durable evidence proves that the rejected attempt never started a provider. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Retain ten authorized GitHub requests behind a failed native turn. 2. Start task Retry while the predecessor still lacks its exact termination receipt. 3. Save an independent board message. 4. Complete cleanup and resume the same Retry receipt. 5. Observe the mixed batch rejected during dispatch. Retry that failed attempt to reproduce the second refusal. Refs #17725 for the existing saved-input Retry contract. This change repairs the later queue merge and its retained failed state. Related #17878 covers snapshot continuation and later turns in recovered directories; its workspace repair can be reviewed independently. ## What Changed - Keep deferred chat Retry promotion scoped to its exact receipt. Ordinary board Retry coalescing retains its existing behavior. - Let a new explicit task Retry restore a historical mixed batch only after strict never-started, source, ownership, allocation, board-comment and prior-delivery checks. - Preserve failed-run history and original budget-skipped receipts. Record restored queue ownership in activity. - Add production queue and HTTP-route regressions. Update the execution contract and verification maps. ## Verification - Before the repair, the deferred ten-input batch failed before identity initialization. The same regression now reaches the real initializer with the exact GitHub batch. The independent board message then reaches its own initializer in a separate turn. - Before historical recovery, ordinary task Retry refused the persisted mixed failed batch. The repair passes that case without changing the failed run. HTTP duplicate requests retain one Retry owner. An additional compatibility probe restored the old queue candidate predicate and removed all historical mixed-state fixture writes: the real producer created the exact batch and the complete historical HTTP recovery case passed (1/1). The fixed-source historical fixture now uses the production serializers. - The affected Retry group passes 86 cases on commit `325c00158df5569f5b42731cda4ecc4584909d99`, including already-coalesced external receipts. Refusals cover edited sources, active controllers, unresolved allocations, changed receipts, foreign external receipt ownership and prior delivery of either board or GitHub input, including immutable budget-skipped receipts. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass with these source changes. Map, module-boundary and diff checks pass. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was started. The host cannot create additional PostgreSQL semaphores; database-dependent suites fail or skip at startup. The affected database group runs against a separate migrated PostgreSQL 17.10 test database with Node 24.22.0 on macOS arm64. - The regression deliberately stops after the real identity initializer to avoid provider allocation. It proves HTTP, queue, source authorization, identity and separate continuation behavior. It does not claim a live model result, GitHub publication, deployment or recovery of the original hosted task. - Current head `325c00158df5569f5b42731cda4ecc4584909d99`: all checks are terminal with no failures or pending checks; required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` pass. Conditional Storybook checks are skipped. Greptile and Paperclip each reviewed this exact commit at 5/5. Both earlier review threads are resolved. Paperclip retains one optional robustness suggestion for batch ordering; the verified historical producer order remains a strict recovery contract. ## Risks Restoring input could repeat work if the prior turn had executed. The existing strict bootstrap proof rejects provider output, native state, process or controller evidence, and allocations. Restoration also checks current external authority, unchanged board revisions and other run history. An uncertain executor remains held. No migration, provider fallback or relaxation of dispatch validation is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing and test execution. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. A separately shared regression supplied independent reproduction evidence. ## 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 (affected database regressions; full local suite has the host limitation described above) - [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.