mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 07:23:08 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
a04a77c9d3
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - The inbox subsystem must let agents act for a responsible user without silently granting access to every company user's tasks > - Existing authorization had no inbox-specific action, target-user scope, or per-user agent policy > - Inbox archive data also needs company-safe ownership and replay-safe schema changes before API mutations can rely on it > - This pull request adds the database policy foundation and a fail-closed `inbox:manage` authorization decision > - The benefit is a least-privilege core for later inbox archive endpoints, including explicit cross-user grants and low-trust denial ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, and `server`). ### Problem or motivation Agents need to manage inbox state for the user responsible for their run, but the control plane lacks an inbox-specific permission model and user-targeted grant scope. A generic mutation path would risk cross-user access or inconsistent policy enforcement. ### Proposed solution Add inbox archive ownership and per-user agent policies, introduce `inbox:manage`, and evaluate responsible-user defaults, disabled/allowlist policies, active membership, low-trust presets, and scoped cross-user grants in one authorization decision. ### Alternatives considered Reusing generic issue mutation permissions was rejected because it cannot express user-targeted inbox scope. Requiring grants for all self-user access was rejected because it would make the responsible-user path closed by default instead of using the requested per-user policy model. ### Roadmap alignment `ROADMAP.md` contains no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization item; this is incremental control-plane authorization work. ### Additional context This PR provides the authorization and schema foundation. Route and UI behavior can build on this decision without duplicating access-control rules. ## What Changed - Builds on the merged migration `0172_inbox_archive_agent_policies` (#9654) for company/user-scoped inbox archives and per-user agent policy rows. - Added replay-safe migration `0173_inbox_policy_agent_cleanup` with a GIN allowlist index and GIN-backed database cleanup that removes deleted agent IDs from policy allowlists. - Added Drizzle schema exports for inbox agent policies and responsible-user ownership on inbox archives. - Added the shared `inbox:manage` permission key and `scope.userIds` evaluation for user-targeted grants. - Added fail-closed inbox authorization for unresolved targets, inactive memberships, low-trust agents, disabled policies, allowlist misses, and ungranted cross-user access. - Added migration replay coverage and the full inbox authorization decision matrix. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts` — 50 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - The merged `0172` migration changed inbox archive uniqueness from agent-owned to responsible-user-owned rows; `0173` is additive (index + cleanup trigger) and idempotent, and replay coverage verifies both remain safe for databases that already applied an earlier form. - `scope.userIds` uses the existing JSON grant-scope parser, so malformed privileged grant payloads continue to fail through the shared parsing behavior rather than a dedicated schema. - Cross-user grants intentionally act as board-admin overrides; responsible-user default access remains bounded by disabled and allowlist policies. - The authorization action is not yet wired to public mutation routes, limiting immediate behavioral impact while establishing the contract those routes must use. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning effort, CLI tool use, code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip control-plane integration. Context window size is not exposed by the configured adapter. ## 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>