mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-15 18:56:05 +01:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. **What happened?** Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. **Expected behavior** Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test execution. ## 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
148 lines
5.1 KiB
TypeScript
148 lines
5.1 KiB
TypeScript
import { and, desc, eq, sql } from "drizzle-orm";
|
|
import { activityLog, type Db } from "@paperclipai/db";
|
|
import type { IssueReviewPolicy } from "@paperclipai/shared";
|
|
import { forbidden } from "../errors.js";
|
|
|
|
export interface IssueReviewVerdictActor {
|
|
type: "agent" | "user";
|
|
id: string;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
export interface IssueReviewRequester extends IssueReviewVerdictActor {
|
|
reviewInteractionId: string | null;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
interface ReviewPolicyIssue {
|
|
id: string;
|
|
companyId: string;
|
|
reviewPolicy?: IssueReviewPolicy | null;
|
|
createdByAgentId?: string | null;
|
|
createdByUserId?: string | null;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
export async function resolveIssueReviewRequester(
|
|
db: Db,
|
|
issue: ReviewPolicyIssue,
|
|
): Promise<IssueReviewRequester | null> {
|
|
const transition = await db
|
|
.select({
|
|
actorType: activityLog.actorType,
|
|
actorId: activityLog.actorId,
|
|
details: activityLog.details,
|
|
})
|
|
.from(activityLog)
|
|
.where(and(
|
|
eq(activityLog.companyId, issue.companyId),
|
|
eq(activityLog.entityType, "issue"),
|
|
eq(activityLog.entityId, issue.id),
|
|
eq(activityLog.action, "issue.updated"),
|
|
sql`(
|
|
(
|
|
${activityLog.details} ->> 'status' = 'in_review'
|
|
AND ${activityLog.details} -> '_previous' ->> 'status' IS NOT NULL
|
|
AND ${activityLog.details} -> '_previous' ->> 'status' <> 'in_review'
|
|
)
|
|
OR
|
|
(
|
|
${activityLog.details} -> 'changes' -> 'status' ->> 'to' = 'in_review'
|
|
AND ${activityLog.details} -> 'changes' -> 'status' ->> 'from' IS NOT NULL
|
|
AND ${activityLog.details} -> 'changes' -> 'status' ->> 'from' <> 'in_review'
|
|
)
|
|
)`,
|
|
))
|
|
.orderBy(desc(activityLog.createdAt), desc(activityLog.id))
|
|
.limit(1)
|
|
.then((rows) => rows[0] ?? null);
|
|
|
|
if (transition?.actorType === "agent" || transition?.actorType === "user") {
|
|
const reviewInteractionId = typeof transition.details?.reviewInteractionId === "string"
|
|
? transition.details.reviewInteractionId
|
|
: null;
|
|
return { type: transition.actorType, id: transition.actorId, reviewInteractionId };
|
|
}
|
|
if (issue.createdByAgentId && !issue.createdByUserId) {
|
|
return { type: "agent", id: issue.createdByAgentId, reviewInteractionId: null };
|
|
}
|
|
if (issue.createdByUserId && !issue.createdByAgentId) {
|
|
return { type: "user", id: issue.createdByUserId, reviewInteractionId: null };
|
|
}
|
|
return null;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
export async function isIssueReviewVerdictInteraction(
|
|
db: Db,
|
|
input: {
|
|
issue: ReviewPolicyIssue;
|
|
interaction: {
|
|
id: string;
|
|
createdByAgentId?: string | null;
|
|
createdByUserId?: string | null;
|
|
};
|
|
},
|
|
): Promise<boolean> {
|
|
const requester = await resolveIssueReviewRequester(db, input.issue);
|
|
if (!requester) return false;
|
|
if (requester.reviewInteractionId && requester.reviewInteractionId !== input.interaction.id) return false;
|
|
// Older review transitions did not persist the interaction binding. In that
|
|
// case, an unattributed confirmation is ambiguous and must fail closed.
|
|
// Confirmations attributed to an unrelated writer remain independently
|
|
// resolvable, while requester-created confirmations inherit the issue policy.
|
|
if (!requester.reviewInteractionId
|
|
&& !input.interaction.createdByAgentId
|
|
&& !input.interaction.createdByUserId) {
|
|
return true;
|
|
}
|
|
return requester.type === "agent"
|
|
? input.interaction.createdByAgentId === requester.id
|
|
: input.interaction.createdByUserId === requester.id;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
export async function assertIssueReviewVerdictActorAllowed(
|
|
db: Db,
|
|
input: {
|
|
issue: ReviewPolicyIssue;
|
|
actor: IssueReviewVerdictActor;
|
|
reviewPolicy?: IssueReviewPolicy | null;
|
|
},
|
|
): Promise<void> {
|
|
const policy = input.reviewPolicy ?? input.issue.reviewPolicy ?? "anyone";
|
|
if (policy === "anyone") return;
|
|
|
|
if (policy === "human_only") {
|
|
if (input.actor.type === "user") return;
|
|
throw forbidden(
|
|
"Review policy `human_only` allows only an authenticated user to approve or reject this review.",
|
|
{
|
|
code: "review_policy_denied",
|
|
policy,
|
|
allowedActor: "authenticated_user_with_issue_write_access",
|
|
remediation: "Have an authenticated user with issue write access submit the verdict.",
|
|
},
|
|
);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
const requester = await resolveIssueReviewRequester(db, input.issue);
|
|
if (!requester) {
|
|
throw forbidden(
|
|
"Review policy `not_creator` requires a different writer, but the review requester could not be determined.",
|
|
{
|
|
code: "review_policy_denied",
|
|
policy,
|
|
allowedActor: "writer_other_than_review_requester",
|
|
remediation: "Move the issue out of and back into `in_review` to record a requester before another writer submits the verdict.",
|
|
},
|
|
);
|
|
}
|
|
if (requester.type !== input.actor.type || requester.id !== input.actor.id) return;
|
|
|
|
throw forbidden(
|
|
"Review policy `not_creator` requires someone other than the writer who moved the issue into `in_review` to approve or reject it.",
|
|
{
|
|
code: "review_policy_denied",
|
|
policy,
|
|
allowedActor: "writer_other_than_review_requester",
|
|
remediation: "Have another writer with issue write access submit the verdict.",
|
|
},
|
|
);
|
|
}
|