mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-14 08:26:46 +02:00
ba4fac585d
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A company in Paperclip can have more than one human member, and each member can create agents > - The app does not record which person created an agent > - When two or more people share a company, members cannot see who added an agent or who to ask about it > - This pull request records the creator of each agent and shows the creator on the agent Overview tab > - The benefit is clear ownership of agents in shared companies, with no change for single-user companies ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. This description follows `feature_request.yml`. **Subsystem affected** Agents: the agent data model, the agent create path on the server, and the agent Overview tab in the board UI. **Problem or motivation** Paperclip does not record which human user created an agent. When more than one human user works in a company, the agent page does not tell members who created the agent. **Proposed solution** Record the user ID of the creator when a human creates an agent. Show "Created by <name>" on the Identity card of the agent Overview tab. Show this row only when the company has two or more human members. Do not count the synthetic local Board principal as a human member. Do not show the local Board as a creator. **Alternatives considered** Count human users across the full instance. We did not do this. An instance-wide count tells a member of one company that other companies have users. The creator is always a member of the agent's company, so the company count is sufficient. **Roadmap alignment** `ROADMAP.md` has no item for agent ownership. This change is small and additive. ## What Changed - Add the nullable column `agents.created_by_user_id` (`packages/db/src/schema/agents.ts`, migration `0343_new_mentor.sql`). - Set the column in the single agent insert path (`server/src/modules/agent-lifecycle/adapters/records.ts`). The value comes from the authenticated user actor. The server ignores a creator value in the request body. Agents that agents or the system create keep `null`. - Backfill existing agents in the migration. The backfill uses the earliest `agent.created` or `agent.hire_created` activity row that a user actor wrote in the same company. - Add `createdByUserId` to the shared `Agent` type (`packages/shared/src/types/agent.ts`). - Add `ui/src/lib/agent-creator.ts`. It decides if the UI shows the creator row and it resolves the creator name. If the creator left the company, the row shows "Former member". - Add the "Created by" row to the Identity card in `ui/src/pages/AgentDetail.tsx`. If the company user directory request fails, the row shows "Could not load creator". The row does not disappear silently. - Add the Storybook story `Pages/Agent Detail → Shared Company Shows Creator`. - Document the column in `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` §7.2. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passes. This includes the migration numbering and migration safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passes. - `ui`: `tsc --noEmit` passes. - `server`: `vitest run src/modules/agent-lifecycle/__tests__/lifecycle.test.ts` passes (49/49). Two new tests: - The server records the creator from the actor and ignores a creator value in the request body. - The backfill takes the earliest user activity row. It skips agent actors and rows from other companies. - `server`: `vitest run src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts` passes (40/40). A new test checks that a built-in agent enabled by a human records that human, and that automatic provisioning stays unattributed. The gated (pending-approval) provisioning test also asserts the creator. `src/__tests__/built-in-agent-routes.test.ts` also passes. - `ui`: `vitest run src/lib/agent-creator.test.ts src/pages/AgentOverview.test.tsx` passes (10/10). The tests cover these cases: the row shows with two or more humans, the row stays hidden with one human plus the Board, the UI never shows the Board as the creator, the row shows an error when the directory request fails, and the row stays hidden (no error) for agents with no creator or the Board as creator. The last case fails without the fix. - The current Storybook catalog uses source annotations and generated indexes. `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check` passes (264 story files, 2,514 stories). The merge keeps the authored catalog deletion from master. - `pnpm check:token-gates` is clean. - Screenshots from the Storybook story (fake data: two human members, Alice Admin and Bob Builder, plus the local Board). The red "Could not load public key" text is a Storybook artifact: the story has no fixture for the public key request. The existing `Dashboard` story shows the same text. **Two or more human members: the Identity card shows "Created by".**  **One human member plus the local Board: the row stays hidden.**  Full Overview tab: [overview-created-by.png](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/9b62bd2ea6cf984ce6745f08cc45f44ddf00fb51/pr-16055/overview-created-by.png). The images are on the separate branch `pr-assets/agent-created-by`. They are not in this PR and do not go to `master`. - Manual check: open Storybook at `Pages/Agent Detail → Shared Company Shows Creator`. The Identity card shows "Created by Alice Admin". The `Dashboard` story has one human, so it does not show the row. - Final focused verification on `5a02350cf16050a3cf3cb3f8dc061fe61758c60d`: all 99 tests pass across the two UI suites, built-in-agent suite, and lifecycle suite. The backfill test applies the complete migration twice. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` and preserves the company-scoped backfill. Migration numbering and token checks pass. - Full repository typecheck, build, and Storybook build pass. The generated creator story ID is present. A Chromium check renders the production agent page fixture and verifies the creator row and Alice Admin name. Map checks and their 21 tests pass. A fresh Apex review is 5/5 on the current head with no unresolved findings. All 54 successful CI checks pass on this head, with two intentional skips, including all general and serialized test shards, E2E, typecheck, and build. The workspaces-b job passed after rerunning a runner shutdown; no source change was needed. The separate, unsharded local `pnpm test:run` invocation has not completed; complete suite verification comes from CI. ## Risks - Migration: the migration adds one nullable column and runs one `UPDATE` on `agents` with a correlated subquery on `activity_log`. On an instance with a very large activity log, the backfill can take some time. The migration does not lock other tables and does not delete data. - Backfill accuracy: agents with no user-authored create activity row keep `null`. The UI then does not show a creator. This is the same as the current behavior. - Privacy: the row shows only names from the company user directory, and only to users who can already see that directory. - Low risk for single-user companies: the UI does not change for them. > 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 - Provider: Anthropic, Claude Opus 5.5 (model ID `claude-opus-5-5`), run as a coding agent through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edit, and test execution), standard context window. OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`) through Codex assisted conflict resolution, regression tests, and repository verification. This session does not expose an exact 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Amy (Opus) <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
