mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
8e5959c759
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board governs the agent lifecycle: pause, resume and terminate > - The V1 permission matrix says agents may never pause an agent, and may resume one only with a direct `agents:configure` change grant > - `POST /api/agents/:id/pause` and `POST /api/agents/:id/resume` enforce this, but `PATCH /api/agents/:id` with a `status` ran the same lifecycle change after only the agent-configuration check > - The `agents.pause-agent` chat eval caught it: the CEO agent paused Morgan itself through `PATCH`, although the case (and the spec) expect a board user to do it > - This pull request applies the dedicated routes' checks to `PATCH` status changes, as #19955 did for termination > - The benefit is one lifecycle authority, with no second route around it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19955 **What happened** An agent that may configure another agent could pause it with `PATCH /api/agents/{id}` `{ "status": "paused" }`, although `POST /api/agents/{id}/pause` is board-only. The same `PATCH` with `{ "status": "idle" }` resumed an agent without the change-grant decision and without the invalid-org-chain guard that `POST /resume` applies. In a chat eval run, the CEO agent paused Morgan this way and reported "Morgan is paused". **Expected behavior** Pause is board-only on every route (`doc/SPEC-implementation.md` section 9.3: "Pause/resume agent ... pause: no; resume: direct `agents:configure` grant only"; "Pause, clear-error, terminate, approval, and key-management routes remain board-only"). An agent gets the standard final "Board access required" denial with a link to the agent's profile. Resume through `PATCH` needs the same grant and org-chain checks as `POST /resume`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. As an agent with agent-configuration permission over another agent, call `POST /api/agents/{id}/pause`. The result is 403. 2. Call `PATCH /api/agents/{id}` with `{ "status": "paused" }`. Before this change the result is 200 and the agent is paused. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/agents.ts` (`PATCH /agents/:id`): `status: "paused"` now calls `assertBoard`, the same check as `POST /pause`. Agents get the structured `board_access_required` denial that says the denial is final and links `/<prefix>/agents/<id>`. - `status: "idle"` now calls `assertCanResumeAgent` (the `agent_config:update` decision with `requiresChangeGrant`) and returns 409 with the repair guidance when the org chain is invalid, the same as `POST /resume`. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts`: pause is denied through both routes for an agent allowed to configure the target, with no lifecycle change, run cancel or activity. A board user can still pause through `PATCH`. `PATCH` idle applies the change-grant decision, allows a granted agent, and keeps the org-chain guard. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts`: 147 passed. - Without the route change, three new tests fail (PATCH pause by an agent, PATCH idle without the change grant, PATCH idle with an invalid org chain). - Policy evidence: `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` section 9.3 and the `agents.pause-agent` scenario ("Pausing an agent requires board control"). ## Risks - Non-board automation that paused agents through `PATCH` status now gets 403. That is the intended governance boundary. Board users are not affected. - Agents that resumed agents through `PATCH` status now need the same change grant as `POST /resume`. Standard agents get `agents:configure` on creation, so ordinary behavior does not change. - `PATCH` idle now returns 409 for an agent with an invalid org chain, the same as `POST /resume`. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), via Claude Code, with tool use (shell, file editing). ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>