cafa25029c
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runtime preserves task execution across server restarts. > - Remote workspace preparation can finish before the executor claims its first provider attempt. > - The recovery classifier required a provider checkpoint even when the durable coordinator proved that execution had never started. > - A deployment during this interval therefore left safe startup work on a permanent recovery hold. > - This pull request admits that narrow startup state to the existing same-run bootstrap path. Existing execution and ownership checks remain in force. > - The original preparation yields when recovery owns the coordinator. It cannot fail or clean up the recovered run. > - Tasks can continue after this interruption without an operator retry or a duplicate provider turn. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A server deployment interrupted a prepared remote workspace before the native executor's first claim. The coordinator had attempt zero, controller generation zero, and no owner, process, provider event, or checkpoint. Restart classification returned `ambiguous_remote_recovery_evidence` and blocked the task. **Expected behavior** The server should recognize this durable never-claimed state and continue the original run through normal execution admission. A prior claim, uncertain ownership, or contradictory execution evidence must retain the recovery hold. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Prepare a remote workspace for a native run. 2. Stop the controller before the executor commits its first claim. 3. Restart the controller and classify the running native task. 4. Observe that the old classifier blocks it because no provider checkpoint exists. Related: #16341 preserves remote recovery failure reasons. #16344 strengthens remote restart qualification. Neither changes admission for an untouched remote startup. ## What Changed - Require a server-owned fencing version written only with fresh native identities. Older unmarked preparations stay held during rolling upgrades; caller profile data cannot add that marker to an existing run. - Leave the current server's active preparation with its existing execution. - Yield through the controller-detachment path when a different execution owns the coordinator lease. Lease expiry does not grant takeover authority. - Preserve run-scoped gateway tokens during detachment so stale preparation cannot revoke the recovered worker's tools. - Admit a valid prepared remote workspace only when the locked coordinator proves attempt and controller generation zero, no owner, and no prior session or execution evidence. - Check launch receipts and provider source events before granting bootstrap recovery. - Keep the original run and session. Preserve atomic recovery claims, executor durable-state checks, and normal admission gates. - Add real PostgreSQL regression tests for competing controllers and seven contradictory evidence cases. - Update recovery documentation, the run-log reason, and both capability maps. ## Verification - The competing-controller regressions failed before the ownership fix and pass for both live and expired foreign leases. - On the final revision, 77 runtime-selection, restart recovery, real PostgreSQL, and heartbeat boundary tests pass with no skips, including all local runner process fixtures. The full native executor file passes all 698 tests. - Another 91 live-run route tests pass locally. An earlier CI timeout in that unrelated file passed on retry; the complete final-head CI passed without that failure. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check`: passed locally. The map check verifies structure only. - Local `pnpm test:run` did not finish: an early attempt had build-related collection failures, and later full-suite execution was stopped after complete CI passed. Targeted suites passed after build preparation. This is not a local full-suite pass. - The complete [PR workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38669996667) passed on `2baffb3652bfeb4705a30ca3706fbda6c3d72aa4`, including all test shards, build/typecheck, runner verification, and browser E2E. All 55 applicable review/security/CI checks succeeded; two Storybook checks were skipped. - [Greptile Apex](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16349#issuecomment-6180848957): 5/5 on the same final head, with no unresolved findings. - No live remote provider restart is claimed by the database regression. ## Risks - A bare executor can no longer take a foreign coordinator lease after expiry. A verified recovery claim must transfer authority first. - Existing preparations without the server-owned fencing marker retain their recovery hold during rolling upgrades. - Incorrect admission could duplicate provider work. This path requires a positive durable never-claimed receipt, rejects contradictory launch evidence, and keeps the executor's existing durable-root verification. - Previously claimed or incomplete remote recovery evidence remains blocked. This change does not clear historical terminal holds. - No schema, API, dependency, or UI changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, code execution, and browser inspection. The exact serving snapshot ID and context window size are not exposed in this 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 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> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@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.
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.