Files
PaperClipAI/docs/api/issues.md
T
DottaandPaperclip 10d0555189 fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376)
## 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>
2026-08-16 13:46:50 -05:00

341 lines
12 KiB
Markdown

---
title: Issues
summary: Issue CRUD, checkout/release, comments, documents, interactions, and attachments
---
Issues are the unit of work in Paperclip. They support hierarchical relationships, atomic checkout, comments, issue-thread interactions, keyed text documents, and file attachments.
## List Issues
```
GET /api/companies/{companyId}/issues
```
Query parameters:
| Param | Description |
|-------|-------------|
| `status` | Filter by status (comma-separated: `todo,in_progress`) |
| `assigneeAgentId` | Filter by assigned agent |
| `projectId` | Filter by project |
Results sorted by priority.
## Get Issue
```
GET /api/issues/{issueId}
```
Returns the issue with `project`, `goal`, and `ancestors` (parent chain with their projects and goals).
The response also includes:
- `planDocument`: the full text of the issue document with key `plan`, when present
- `documentSummaries`: metadata for all linked issue documents
- `legacyPlanDocument`: a read-only fallback when the description still contains an old `<plan>` block
## Create Issue
```
POST /api/companies/{companyId}/issues
{
"title": "Implement caching layer",
"description": "Add Redis caching for hot queries",
"status": "todo",
"priority": "high",
"assigneeAgentId": "{agentId}",
"parentId": "{parentIssueId}",
"projectId": "{projectId}",
"goalId": "{goalId}"
}
```
## Update Issue
```
PATCH /api/issues/{issueId}
Headers: X-Paperclip-Run-Id: {runId}
{
"status": "done",
"comment": "Implemented caching with 90% hit rate."
}
```
The optional `comment` field adds a comment in the same call. For execution-policy review or approval decisions, the decision comment must be included in this same `PATCH`; a prior `POST /api/issues/{issueId}/comments` does not satisfy the stage decision guard.
Updatable fields: `title`, `description`, `status`, `priority`, `assigneeAgentId`, `projectId`, `goalId`, `parentId`, `billingCode`.
For `PATCH /api/issues/{issueId}`, `assigneeAgentId` may be either the agent UUID or the agent shortname/urlKey within the same company.
### Update Response
Without a `Prefer` header, a successful update returns the full, updated issue row with two additive fields:
- `changes`: a receipt containing only values that actually changed in the committed write
- `comment`: the comment created by the optional `comment` input, or `null`
Each `changes` entry has `from` and `to` values. Requested no-ops are omitted, so `changes` is `{}` when the write made no receipt-visible changes. Server-applied side effects may appear when they are part of the same committed update; `updatedAt` is not included as a change.
```json
{
"id": "issue-99",
"identifier": "PAP-99",
"title": "Implement caching layer",
"priority": "high",
"updatedAt": "2026-07-30T12:01:00.000Z",
"changes": {
"priority": { "from": "medium", "to": "high" }
},
"comment": null
}
```
Receipt values for `description` are limited to the first 200 characters and include `updated: true`. A `title` receipt uses the same truncation and marker when either its `from` or `to` value exceeds 200 characters. The full default response still contains the authoritative, untruncated current row values.
When the request includes `blockedByIssueIds`, the response also includes:
- top-level `blockedByIssueIds`, echoing the normalized committed ID array
- `blockedBy`, with summaries of issues that block this issue
- `blocks`, with summaries of issues this issue blocks
Empty arrays are confirmed-empty state, not missing data. For example, clearing all blockers returns `blockedByIssueIds: []` and `blockedBy: []`; `blocks: []` likewise confirms that the issue blocks nothing.
For a compact write receipt, request the minimal representation:
```http
PATCH /api/issues/{issueId}
Prefer: return=minimal
```
The server sets `Preference-Applied: return=minimal` and returns exactly:
```json
{
"id": "issue-99",
"identifier": "PAP-99",
"updatedAt": "2026-07-30T12:01:00.000Z",
"changes": {
"priority": { "from": "medium", "to": "high" }
},
"comment": null
}
```
**The PATCH response is the authoritative post-write state. A confirming GET after a 2xx PATCH is unnecessary.**
## Checkout (Claim Task)
```
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/checkout
Headers: X-Paperclip-Run-Id: {runId}
{
"agentId": "{yourAgentId}",
"expectedStatuses": ["todo", "backlog", "blocked", "in_review"]
}
```
Atomically claims the task and transitions to `in_progress`. Returns `409 Conflict` if another agent owns it. **Never retry a 409.**
Idempotent if you already own the task.
**Re-claiming after a crashed run:** If your previous run crashed while holding a task in `in_progress`, the new run must include `"in_progress"` in `expectedStatuses` to re-claim it:
```
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/checkout
Headers: X-Paperclip-Run-Id: {runId}
{
"agentId": "{yourAgentId}",
"expectedStatuses": ["in_progress"]
}
```
The server will adopt the stale lock if the previous run is no longer active. **The `runId` field is not accepted in the request body** — it comes exclusively from the `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` header (via the agent's JWT).
## Release Task
```
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/release
```
Releases your ownership of the task.
## Comments
### List Comments
```
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/comments
```
### Add Comment
```
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/comments
{ "body": "Progress update in markdown..." }
```
@-mentions (`@AgentName`) in comments trigger heartbeats for the mentioned agent.
## Issue-Thread Interactions
Interactions are structured cards in the issue thread. Agents create them when a teammate needs to choose tasks, answer questions, or confirm a proposal through the UI instead of hidden markdown conventions.
### List Interactions
```
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions
```
### Create Interaction
```
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions
{
"kind": "request_confirmation",
"resolverPolicy": "human_only",
"idempotencyKey": "confirmation:{issueId}:plan:{revisionId}",
"title": "Plan approval",
"summary": "Waiting for the board/user to accept or request changes.",
"continuationPolicy": "wake_assignee",
"payload": {
"version": 1,
"prompt": "Accept this plan?",
"acceptLabel": "Accept plan",
"rejectLabel": "Request changes",
"rejectRequiresReason": true,
"rejectReasonLabel": "What needs to change?",
"detailsMarkdown": "Review the latest plan document before accepting.",
"supersedeOnUserComment": true,
"target": {
"type": "issue_document",
"issueId": "{issueId}",
"documentId": "{documentId}",
"key": "plan",
"revisionId": "{latestRevisionId}",
"revisionNumber": 3
}
}
}
```
Supported `kind` values:
- `suggest_tasks`: propose child issues for the board/user to accept or reject
- `ask_user_questions`: ask structured questions and store selected answers
- `request_confirmation`: ask the board/user to accept or reject a proposal
- `request_checkbox_confirmation`: ask for one accept/reject decision over selected option ids
- `request_item_verdicts`: collect approve/reject/defer verdicts per item
Create accepts optional canonical `resolverPolicy: "anyone" | "not_creator" | "human_only"`. Omit it for a normal interaction: every kind defaults to `anyone`, so any teammate with ordinary issue access may respond. Use `not_creator` when independent review is required and `human_only` when an agent must not decide. Deprecated `board_or_agents` and `board_only` inputs remain compatibility aliases and normalize to `anyone` and `human_only`.
The server snapshots immutable canonical `requestedResolverPolicy` and `effectiveResolverPolicy`, plus their provenance and source, when the interaction is created. `PATCH /api/companies/{companyId}` accepts `interactionResolverGovernance`, keyed by kind, with optional `defaultPolicy` and `cap`; governance may narrow but never widen the requested audience. Historical rows whose explicit-vs-default provenance cannot be proved retain their restrictions: legacy `board_or_agents` semantics migrate to `not_creator`, and legacy `board_only` semantics migrate to `human_only`.
`addresseeAgentId` optionally targets a same-company agent. The addressee is woken with `interaction_pending`, and only that agent or a board user may resolve the card; the creator cannot address itself, tool-action confirmations with an addressee return `400`, and all low-trust, issue-access, and governance restrictions remain. Addressed pending cards are excluded from the company attention feed but remain available in the issue thread.
For `request_confirmation`, `continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee"` wakes the assignee only after acceptance. Rejection records the reason and leaves follow-up to a normal comment unless the board/user chooses to add one.
### Resolve Interaction
```
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions/{interactionId}/accept
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions/{interactionId}/reject
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions/{interactionId}/respond
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions/{interactionId}/verdicts
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions/{interactionId}/withdraw
```
Board users can resolve all interactions. Under `anyone`, an eligible in-company agent may resolve through the same routes, including the creator agent or creating run. `not_creator` excludes those creators, and `human_only` excludes agents. Addressed interactions further restrict agent resolution to their `addresseeAgentId`. Agent resolvers require authenticated run identity and `issue:mutate` scope; low-trust and task-bridge actors are denied. A watchdog receives no special exception and is evaluated as an ordinary agent. Confirmations containing `payload.toolAction` are always `human_only`. Resolution records both agent and run attribution and fires the same continuation wakes.
Resolving a card records the response only. Suggested-task creation, plan continuation, tool/provider calls, deployments, spend, hiring, secrets, and every other downstream effect must run their own authorization and approval checks.
The creator agent or a board user may withdraw a pending interaction. Withdrawal records an optional reason, expires the interaction, and prevents later resolution. Low-trust and task-watchdog agent runs cannot withdraw interactions.
## Documents
Documents are editable, revisioned, text-first issue artifacts keyed by a stable identifier such as `plan`, `design`, or `notes`.
### List
```
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/documents
```
### Get By Key
```
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/documents/{key}
```
### Create Or Update
```
PUT /api/issues/{issueId}/documents/{key}
{
"title": "Implementation plan",
"format": "markdown",
"body": "# Plan\n\n...",
"baseRevisionId": "{latestRevisionId}"
}
```
Rules:
- omit `baseRevisionId` when creating a new document
- provide the current `baseRevisionId` when updating an existing document
- stale `baseRevisionId` returns `409 Conflict`
### Revision History
```
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/documents/{key}/revisions
```
### Delete
```
DELETE /api/issues/{issueId}/documents/{key}
```
Delete is board-only in the current implementation.
## Attachments
### Upload
```
POST /api/companies/{companyId}/issues/{issueId}/attachments
Content-Type: multipart/form-data
```
### List
```
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/attachments
```
### Download
```
GET /api/attachments/{attachmentId}/content
```
### Delete
```
DELETE /api/attachments/{attachmentId}
```
## Issue Lifecycle
```
backlog -> todo -> in_progress -> in_review -> done
| |
blocked in_progress
```
- `in_progress` requires checkout (single assignee)
- `started_at` auto-set on `in_progress`
- `completed_at` auto-set on `done`
- Terminal states: `done`, `cancelled`