Files
PaperClipAI/maps
Devin FoleyandPaperclip c7f4b74111 fix: isolate fresh task sources from restricted project workspaces (#16095)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Each task must have an isolated workspace that its agent can read.
> - Older project checkouts can contain worktrees for restricted tasks.
> - The source access check correctly rejects these shared checkouts.
> - A fresh task then fails even when its agent can clone the project
remote.
> - This pull request gives fresh default tasks a separate clone of the
same remote.
> - The task can start while the restricted task files remain protected.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

Fresh tasks fail with `Task workspace access is no longer available`
when their default project checkout contains a restricted task worktree.
The caller has access to the new task and its remote repository. The
shared local Git source is unsafe to copy.

**Expected behavior**

Use a separate clone of the same authorized remote for a fresh default
task. Keep source access checks and responsible-user Git credentials in
force.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Put a restricted task worktree inside a project checkout.
2. Assign a new default task to an agent that cannot read the restricted
task.
3. Start the new task. The current source check fails before workspace
creation.
4. With this fix, the task uses a separate remote source. The restricted
files are absent. Later runs reuse the same owned source.

Related work: Refs #15749, Refs #15528. This change keeps their source
retention and workspace ownership checks.

## What Changed

- Add a remote source path scoped to the company and task.
- Clone through the run’s Git connection after the shared source fails
its access check.
- Reject reused workspaces, explicit selections, pinned branches, local
sources, credential-bearing URLs, and symlink paths.
- Check source access again before publishing the workspace.
- Resolve later runs from the verified recorded source. Ignore leftover
clones that the saved workspace does not own.
- Record provenance for new implicit Git defaults. Read the current task
binding before fallback. Preserve explicit, inherited and ambiguous
legacy checkout choices.
- Keep the effective task strategy during startup validation of matching
implicit defaults. Preserve the existing explicit-selection write check.
- Add regression coverage and document the fallback.

## Verification

- Merged master `c8efdbfba43` and resolved both rounds of catalog/index
conflicts. All upstream suites, classifications, source references and
story IDs are preserved. Both fix branches combine cleanly in either
merge order, with no catalog fingerprint drift.
- Passed locally: 313 focused source-isolation, preparation,
task-creation, binding and trust tests before the final startup fix. The
final fix passes all 100 source-trust, task-binding and
environment-selection tests. Earlier workspace-resolution and
persisted-source suites also passed.
- Real-Git regressions cover all three review findings. Reconstruction
ignores an unrecorded clone and preserves unpublished commits/files.
Explicit and parent-inherited checkout IDs without typed selections
retain their denial and branch tips without cloning or acquiring an
environment. A protected-project heartbeat completes and resumes using
the task’s Git strategy with read access. Explicit selection still
requires writes, and a mismatched default is rejected.
- Passed: the complete Storybook catalog check with no drift errors,
feature and agent map structure checks, and all 17 catalog/index script
tests. The generated index counts match the merged catalog. The current
upstream verification-route inventory remains unchanged. The catalog
contains all 262 authored suites and 2,481 story IDs.
- Passed: full workspace typecheck and build after the final guard
changes, on latest head `79d2adadcb6d3d7a04b9943a91bdb8b0b6abea6d`.
- Latest head `79d2adadcb6d3d7a04b9943a91bdb8b0b6abea6d`: complete CI
passed (54 successful checks, two intentional skips), including the full
general/serialized suites and all eight browser shards. Fresh Greptile
Apex review is 5/5 on this same commit, with no unresolved findings or
recommendations. The full local test command was attempted earlier
without a complete aggregate result; the complete suite result is from
CI.
- Manual check: configure a shared project checkout with a restricted
task worktree. Admit a fresh default task using the authorized remote.
Confirm separate Git storage and no restricted local branch or file.
Reuse, close and reopen the task workspace. Confirm that explicit,
literal branch and low-trust selections retain the denied source.

## Risks

- A clean remote clone excludes unpublished local work. The fallback
applies only to fresh default tasks and rejects existing workspace or
branch selections.
- A private remote can fail to clone when the responsible user lacks Git
credentials. The run then reports the failure; access checks are not
bypassed.
- Older untyped checkout bindings cannot prove default provenance. They
keep the source denial instead of silently dropping unpublished work.
- New implicit Git defaults use the existing workspace-intent contract.
The source directory uses existing instance storage. No schema migration
is required.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6, model ID `gpt-6`, through Codex. Used reasoning,
repository inspection, code editing, terminal tools, and test execution.
The API 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

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-13 12:31:40 -07:00
..

Paperclip maps

The maps describe the same capabilities from two perspectives:

  • Feature map: what a person can do, where to reach it, and how to verify the user journey. Preserve its Poteto format.
  • Agent access map: the APIs and agent entry points for those capabilities, their permission boundaries, and access verification.

These are sibling directories under maps/. Each feature file has a same-named agent access companion. Reuse the product map's sub-feature IDs, so tasks/create identifies the same capability in both maps. Product behavior remains governed by the implementation spec; a map cannot grant authority or redefine a permission denial as success.

Access contract

Every business operation needs both an API and a usable agent entry point for an actor authorized to perform it. A dedicated tool is optional when REST, the CLI, an assigned MCP client, or native search_api / call_api already provides the operation. Record which agent surfaces actually have that path; an installed CLI or optional MCP package cannot be assumed available to every native/remote run.

Track these independently:

Dimension Values and meaning
API present, missing, not-applicable, or unreviewed. Use exact methods/paths; distinguish protocols from REST.
Agent access available, partial, missing, restricted, operator-only, not-applicable, or unreviewed. Name the supported surface and actual entry point.
Policy Actor, action/grant, company/resource/ownership scope, responsible-user intersection, run requirements, work modes, and gates relevant to the operation.
Evidence source-only, verified, failed, blocked, or not-run. Source presence and successful board calls are not agent verification.
Review depth baseline records representative operations and known gaps; operation-reviewed enumerates the capability's meaningful operations and their individual access contracts.

Broad capabilities such as task properties must be split into operations before they count as operation-reviewed: renaming, metadata edits, assignment, dependencies, and lifecycle changes can use different tools and permission rules. An available read path cannot certify a write path. List/get/create/update/delete, execution/control, credential handling, and resolution are separate where their authority or transport differs. Do not duplicate request schemas from OpenAPI.

Exceptions and restrictions

Presentation-only state, static developer fixtures, and pre-start/local operator work may use not-applicable for a domain API, with a concrete reason and the existing local path. When a capability combines shared data with presentation, split the operations: browser recents do not exempt resource lookup from API coverage. Promoting local state to a shared feature requires revisiting the entry.

A board-only endpoint is restricted for agent identity, not an automatic exception or a missing API. Cite the enforced policy and record whether the agent can request the authorized human's action and observe its result. An unresolved delegation question remains in Gaps. Company access, a job title, a personal assistant's OAuth grant, or an accepted interaction does not grant board identity. Keep budget, approval, secret and execution authority intact.

Check actual route/service authorization and production tool admission. OpenAPI actor labels and scenario/evaluation tool declarations are supporting metadata; record disagreements rather than using them as proof of access. Native API fallback restrictions, tool field/scope limits, and rollout settings are part of the agent path, even when a legacy agent can call the REST endpoint directly.

Companion file format

Each agent-access-map/<area>.md has an H1, a relative link to its product file, review date and source commit, followed by one H2 backticked ID per product sub-feature. Each capability contains these fields:

  • Review: baseline or operation-reviewed.
  • API: presence state and exact operation IDs, or a reasoned exception.
  • Agent access: availability state and concrete entry points by surface.
  • Policy: relevant permission and runtime boundaries, with source references.
  • Evidence: evidence state, reviewed commit and sources or executed proof.
  • Verification: allowed/denied assertions and observable result; record what has actually run separately from the proposed recipe.
  • Gaps: missing APIs/paths, discovery drift, unreviewed operations or policy decisions; use none only for the enumerated scope that was reviewed.

For an operation-reviewed capability, use H3 backticked operation IDs and repeat API, Agent access, Policy, Evidence, Verification and Gaps for each operation. Use small operation names such as create, update, read, or run-now. The enclosing capability has Review: operation-reviewed only after its meaningful operations have been enumerated. The following excerpt shows one operation; include the others before using that review label:

## `definition`

Review: `operation-reviewed`.

### `create`

API: `present` — POST /api/companies/{companyId}/routines.
Agent access: `available` — agent REST, CLI routine create and native call_api
under the enabled rollout and active-run/mode gates.
Policy: same company; assigneeAgentId must be the calling agent; cite the
routine authorization and native API policy sources.
Evidence: `source-only` — reviewed commit and source links; no live proof.
Verification: `not-run` — create an owned routine; reject assignment to another
agent; inspect saved configuration, attribution and retry behavior.
Gaps: verify ownership and responsible-user resolution with a permitted agent
context; source presence alone does not qualify this operation.

Keeping the maps synchronized

When a change adds/removes a capability or changes its behavior, API, permission, tool binding, CLI support, or work mode, update the affected companion and product recipe as appropriate in the same change. Preserve IDs across renames where the capability is unchanged; update both indexes and cross-links together. An API-only change may update the companion without rewriting unchanged user instructions.

maintain-verification-skill owns reconciliation of both maps. It follows changed source and authorization, checks real agent reachability, and records product gaps without implementing them during a maintenance pass. The creation skill uses this structure. verify-paperclip consumes the relevant recipes and reports evidence/drift; map editing belongs to maintenance.

Run the structural check after map changes:

node scripts/check-maps.mjs

It checks paired areas/IDs, indexes, required fields, and local references. It does not certify endpoint authorization, production bindings, operation completeness, or live behavior. Source audits must check those against the existing API and tool contracts; avoid a second schema catalog or runtime.

For live access proof, use Paperclip's existing API/runner/MCP fixtures or an owned isolated instance. Use the actual agent identity, target and work mode. Assert the allowed result and relevant denial (another company/private resource, wrong owner, missing grant, invalid run, restricted mode or resolver). Mutations also need persisted state/attribution and retry behavior. Capture evidence using the existing artifact workflow; keep executed run results separate from product-map coverage.json, which records documentation scope.