DottaandPaperclip
c5251b4c0e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connected tasks retain their exact external request across failures. > - Task Retry must preserve that request and prove that old execution cannot continue. > - A workspace setup failure can settle before any provider dispatch. > - The chat retry guard accepted one specific validation failure but rejected other fully recorded setup failures. > - This pull request reuses the same strict server settlement proof for those failures. > - The benefit is one safe continuation through the existing queue, with all source and execution gates intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18803, #18845, #18852, #18853 and #18860. These changes preserve workspace writers, bind completed preservation, or repair other preparation and native continuation paths. This change repairs the separate connected-chat guard for fully recorded legacy setup failures. Search also found #18876, which repairs issue scope during deferred wake promotion and does not repair this guard. **What happened?** A connected task failed during workspace reservation before provider dispatch. Its source remained authorized. Task Retry saved an intent and chat action, but the chat worker rejected that request as `failed_chat_retry_not_authorized`. No successor was created. The old failure had a bootstrap marker, a dispatch-only Runner profile, the matching server error and durable measured settlement events, and no runtime, process, output, result or environment lease. **Expected behavior** A deliberate board Retry can continue the exact saved input after the complete never-dispatched proof passes. An unfinished earlier writer, changed source, accepted result or unknown execution state must still prevent execution. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Admit an authorized request through a restricted chat endpoint. 2. Settle setup before provider dispatch, for example while an earlier workspace writer is unfinished. 3. Keep the exact server error and durable measurement events, a dispatch-only Runner profile, and no execution resources. 4. Press task Retry after the independent writer and ordinary admission gates permit work. 5. The original guard saves the Retry action but refuses to create a successor. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master at `a00109aa35`. The branch is rebased on current master. **Deployment mode** Hosted task diagnosis. Local proof uses real Express HTTP routes, chat authorization, heartbeat queue admission and disposable embedded PostgreSQL on macOS arm64, Node 26.4.0. Provider work is deliberately prevented by occupied fixture capacity. ## What Changed - Extend only canonical task Retry's existing strict pre-provider preparation proof to generic server-settled setup failures. - Keep exact result shape, dispatch profile, controller, runtime, process, output, event and resource checks. No diagnostic message allowlist is added. - Exercise GitHub and Telegram HTTP Retry with the original sender and saved input. Keep the failed run unchanged and create at most one queued successor. - Cover provider events, retained native state/results, modified source, unknown result metadata, live controllers, process identity, source leases and an independent unfinished writer. - Document the guarded contract and correct the obsolete access-map sentence. No new endpoint or agent permission is added. ## Verification - Red before repair: both setup causes failed through the real HTTP/chat/queue path because the durable Retry had no successor. An initial retained-native negative fixture had an invalid foreign-key setup; that fixture was corrected before the final run. - Green: 37 focused integration cases pass, including 22 new GitHub/Telegram cases and 15 existing pre-provider source and execution guards. - Current head `1bf69d20e02a049248ec378f087505563daeb9a0`: all 37 focused integration cases and full repository `pnpm -r typecheck` pass after the master rebase. The full `pnpm build` also passes. - Map structure, module boundaries and `git diff --check` pass. - Full local `pnpm test:run` is running; all six chat shards passed and the remaining server suites are progressing. This is not a full-suite pass claim. - Greptile and Paperclip Review both reviewed this exact head at 5/5 with no actionable findings or review threads. - Initial CI passed all jobs except the unchanged Runner package suite. Its `runtime-host.test.ts` approve-reads case failed before its intended assertions because a managed credential home could not acquire its loopback-port quorum. The exact case passes locally. A wider 121-case check hit the same lease error in a different Pi case (120 passed); all 121 pass with one worker. The exact competing port owner is unknown. One unchanged retry of only failed CI jobs passed, including the Runner package suite and aggregate `ci / verify`. All current-head required CI gates are green; the original failure remains in workflow history. - The dependency setup initially missed the embedded PostgreSQL package's dylib symlinks. Running its own postinstall helper fixed the local setup before assertions. This was not a product test failure. - This change has not been deployed. The original hosted task has not been replayed with the fix. ## Risks - Never-dispatched proof must remain strict. A bootstrap marker or empty process fields alone cannot authorize continuation. The regression cases retain contrary-state holds. - The inherited session display hint remains history and supplies no resume authority. - Current connection, principal, source integrity, pause, budget, approval, dependency and workspace-owner gates remain in their existing owners. - No schema, provider profile, trust policy, model or credential permission changes are required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code editing, tool use and PostgreSQL/browser verification. This session does not expose a more specific deployment model ID or context-window size. ## 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>
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.
The chat scenario catalog uses these same IDs for human requests and expected outcomes. Its scenarios retain the access boundaries here; neither a CEO role nor a planned scenario grants board authority or establishes a working production tool binding.
Use full capability IDs when referring to access contracts outside their file:
onboarding/company means the company capability in onboarding.md in both maps.
The feature index lists feature and
capability IDs; IDs and references
explains entry-point references and stable naming.
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 is enabled by default, but explicit server,
company-allowlist and binding settings can narrow admission. It requires 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.
Connection-management reads support Standard, Ask and Plan; mutations require
Standard. Skill-test runs and nonstandard task-bridge keys cannot administer
connections. These gates supplement each operation's grants, resolved resource
and target scope, and responsible-user authority. See the
rollout policy
and connection authorization.
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.