Devin FoleyandPaperclip
647116dd4b
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and its execution history. > - Sandbox agents use a callback bridge to reach the control plane. > - The API already provides authorized run diagnostics. > - The bridge denied those read routes before the API could check access. > - Health scans could see task activity but could not inspect failed runs. > - This pull request admits exact GET routes on both bridge transports. > - Linked task results also apply the caller's task-read filter. > - Agents can inspect failures through their existing run identity. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A sandbox health scan received `403 Route not allowed` for run history, run details, events, and task recovery records. The same agent could read task activity and connected provider state. The bridge stopped these diagnostic requests before they reached the API. **Expected behavior** The bridge should admit the existing diagnostic GET routes. The API must still enforce company and task access and redact run content. Execution and recovery writes must stay denied by these rules. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start an agent in a sandbox with the normal callback bridge. 2. Use its injected API credential to request company run history. 3. Request a run's details or events. 4. Observe the bridge's route denial before the API handles the request. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced with the callback route list on master at `9f4a956b906`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated server with a managed sandbox. Both queue and HTTP/2 transports use this route list. Related work: Refs #15854 adds separate cost-read routes to this list. It does not add run diagnostics. Searches found no duplicate run-diagnostic change. ## What Changed - Admit nine existing diagnostic GET paths: company history and live runs; run details, events, logs, workspace operations and task links; task runs and recovery records. - Reject other methods, extra path segments, execution control, recovery resolution, and provider-trace administration. - Filter linked tasks by the caller's task-read predicate in both activity and original-task queries. Keep those results in the run's company. A readable run must not expose private task titles. - Test both route lists and the HTTP/2 request path. Preserve query parameters and controller denial responses. Add a database regression with public and private tasks linked to a readable company run. - Document bounded diagnostic reads, private-run stubs, access checks, and credential handling in the agent API reference. Update both affected run access maps with the sandbox entry points and verification limits. ## Verification - Passed both bridge suites: 139 tests. - Passed the server run-route, activity-route, and secret-redaction suites: 117 tests, including the new task-link filter test. The cold route-import test needed a 30-second timeout on this host. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, the adapter-utils typecheck, both generated capability checks, and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`. - Attempted `pnpm test:run`. The bundled PostgreSQL binary cannot start on this host. The native session suite reported 15 database startup failures; the privacy suite skipped its 15 cases. Stopped that full local attempt after those failures. No full local-suite pass is claimed. The final 16-case privacy suite also skipped locally for the same host limitation; Linux CI ran all 16 cases successfully. - One unchanged queue-response test hit a file-read race during the combined local run. A separate rerun of both complete bridge suites passed all 139 cases. The transient race was not independently isolated; the original failure is retained in this record. - All CI gates pass on head `97c65cec459d3fc2787083d05ae6ec51e3fd7b70`. Linux CI passed all 16 database-backed run privacy cases, including the new public/private task-link regression. These also cover private-run denial, authorized owner/reviewer reads, redacted list stubs, credential diagnostics, and deleted-task handling: [serialized shard 1](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38925932547/job/117057907621). - Apex reviewed the final head at 5/5. Both findings are addressed and their review threads are resolved. - After deployment, run a new sandbox audit. Confirm it can list and inspect authorized failed runs without a board credential. This has not been deployed or live-tested by this PR. ## Risks - Sandbox agents can reach more diagnostic GET routes. The existing server access checks and redaction still apply. - Linked task results now omit tasks that the caller cannot read. Authorized task links remain visible. - This change does not grant execution control or recover a failed workspace. - Existing bridge sessions may need a new run to load the updated route list. - No schema, credential, UI, workflow, or lockfile change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with implementation and verification. The exact serving model ID and context-window limit are not exposed in this session. Capabilities used: code editing, shell execution, 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 (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.
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 requires operator rollout admission, 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.
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.