DottaandPaperclip
9e8a9f28d5
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents publish GitHub reviews through governed tools. > - GitHub can accept a publication before the caller receives its result. > - Exact retries must return the existing publication receipt. > - The gateway compared a shortened audit hash with a complete request hash. > - Long reviews therefore failed the retry check even when their content was unchanged. > - This pull request checks the complete saved publication and returns its current receipt. > - Agents can confirm their work without another provider write. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16284, which added durable publication recovery. Refs #16275, which extended the GitHub tool deadline. **What happened?** An exact review retry returned an idempotency conflict after GitHub had published the review. The invocation hash uses an audit preview that shortens strings to 500 characters and arrays to 50 entries. The gateway compared that hash with the complete request hash. The earlier retry tests used short assessments. **Expected behavior** An unchanged request returns its durable receipt. Changed content, changed authority, or a missing publication must not cause another write. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Submit a review with a summary and rationale longer than 500 characters. 2. Let publication finish after a short caller deadline. 3. Repeat the exact request. Before this fix, the gateway returns an idempotency conflict. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master at `c5226daf7a37559ddc007446681717791d80a223`. ## What Changed - Use the durable publication's complete request check for GitHub retries. Keep run, agent, task, connection, tool, and current authority checks. - Return the saved receipt through normal gateway validation and bookkeeping. Leave pending provider work to the durable worker. - Refuse retries without a saved publication. Keep existing invocation keys and audit previews unchanged. - Cover long reviews, comments, progress updates, text suffix changes, nested coverage changes, pending receipts, missing publications, and revoked access. - Document the recovery contract and verification recipes. ## Verification - Red: both long-review receipt cases failed on unchanged production code with the expected idempotency conflict. - Green: all 144 GitHub review workflow tests passed on the final source. This includes long reviews, comments, progress updates, pending and missing receipts, revoked policy, and the native assigned-tool entry point. - Server and workspace typechecks passed. The production build passed. - Map checks passed. These are structural checks. - The first broad run found an incorrect new fixture assumption: its discovery query returned two review tools. The fixture now selects the exact submission tool. An existing description-edit polling test also timed out; it passed separately without a production change, then passed in the complete 144-test rerun. Both earlier failures remain recorded. - Final commit `7cdcdc3a1ac79cb4ed77510a32d795228e3315e8` passed all 55 CI checks. Two optional Storybook jobs were skipped. [Complete CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39304187397). Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit, with zero unresolved review threads. - The earlier local full-suite attempt was stopped after the fixture correction. The final local full-suite attempt was stopped after complete final-head CI passed. No complete local full-suite pass is claimed; full-suite acceptance uses the current-head CI matrix. - Provider responses are controlled fixtures. Native assigned-tool coverage uses the production gateway and disposable PostgreSQL. No live GitHub fault injection, deployment, or historical task recovery is claimed. ## Risks A pending receipt remains pending. It does not complete the task. Caller retries no longer dispatch provider work; the durable worker retains that responsibility. A missing durable publication returns a conflict because the gateway cannot establish the original write's outcome. Existing approval and revocation checks remain effective. No database migration or audit hash change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific serving model ID or context-window limit. ## 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 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>
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.