Files
PaperClipAI/rules/api-route-expectations.mdc
T
DottaandClaude b5f62b3384 docs(rules): correct the scope of the API route and company-scope rules (#20596)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - `rules/*.mdc` holds the architecture rules that reviewers and agents
apply to a change
> - Pull request #20585 added two rules: API route expectations and
company-scope exceptions
> - Review found that both rules state more than is true for the current
code
> - A rule that is too broad makes reviewers flag correct code and can
make an agent add a wrong check
> - This pull request corrects the scope of both rules and fixes one
stale pointer
> - The benefit is rules that match the code they describe

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #20585

**Issue type**

Incorrect contributor documentation.

**Where is the issue?**

`rules/api-route-expectations.mdc`,
`rules/company-scope-exceptions.mdc`, `AGENTS.md` section 8, and
`.agents/skills/honeycomb-tracing/SKILL.md`.

**What's wrong?**

- The API route rule said that every route checks company access.
Instance-level routes such as `health.ts`, `liveness.ts`, `ready.ts`,
`public-mcp.ts` and `org-chart-svg.ts` do not, and must not.
- The API route rule told reviewers to flag each status code outside a
list of seven. `429` and `503` are correct in some routes.
- The company-scope rule said that it lists the only instance-wide data.
`user_sidebar_preferences` is instance-wide and was not in the list.
- The company-scope rule said that it applies to new files that its
`globs` cannot match.
- The `honeycomb-tracing` skill pointed to `AGENTS.md` for the Telemetry
workflow. That text is now in `rules/data-paths.mdc`.

**Suggested fix**

Limit each rule to what is true, and repoint the skill.

## What Changed

- The API route rule and `AGENTS.md` section 8 now apply to routes that
read or write company data.
- The API route rule names the instance-level routes and says not to add
a company check to them.
- The status code list is now a list of common codes. Reviewers flag an
incorrect code, not an unlisted code.
- The company-scope rule lists the sidebar company order as an
instance-wide exception, in the text, the `globs`, and the Greptile
scope.
- The company-scope rule says "known data" and no longer claims to match
new files.
- The `honeycomb-tracing` skill points to `rules/data-paths.mdc`.

## Verification

- Read the two rules and confirm that each named file exists. A local
script checked the `globs` and the route names.
- Confirm that `.greptile/files.json` is valid JSON and that its scope
matches the rule `globs`.
- No source code changed. No test suite ran locally.

## Risks

- Low risk. The change is documentation only.
- The list of instance-level routes can go out of date when a route is
added.

## Model Used

- Claude (Anthropic), in Claude Code with tool use.
- `claude-fable-5-2`.

## 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
- [ ] 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
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] 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: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-11-10 11:19:31 -06:00

51 lines
2.0 KiB
Plaintext

---
description: Every API route that reads or writes company data checks company access and actor permissions, logs mutations to the activity log, and returns consistent HTTP errors.
globs: "server/src/routes/**"
alwaysApply: false
---
# API route expectations
## Scope and purpose
This rule applies to new or changed HTTP routes under `server/src/routes/`.
Paperclip is a multi-company control plane, so each route must keep one
company's data away from another company's actors.
## Auth model
- The base path is `/api`.
- Board access is treated as full-control operator context.
- Agent access uses bearer API keys (`agent_api_keys`), hashed at rest.
- Agent keys must not access other companies.
## Requirements
When you add or change an endpoint that reads or writes company data:
- Apply company access checks. Use the helpers in `server/src/routes/authz.ts`,
such as `assertCompanyAccess`, instead of a new check.
- Enforce actor permissions (board vs agent), for example with `assertBoard` or
`assertBoardOrAgent`.
- Write an activity log entry for each mutation.
- Return consistent HTTP errors. The common codes are
`400/401/403/404/409/422/500`. Other codes are valid when they are the correct
status, such as `429` for rate limits and `503` while the server starts or
drains.
Instance-level routes such as `health.ts`, `liveness.ts`, `ready.ts`,
`public-mcp.ts`, and `org-chart-svg.ts` have no company to check. Do not add a
company access check to a route that serves no company data.
The API reference for callers is in `docs/api/`. Update it when a public
endpoint changes.
## Review criteria
Flag a route that reads or writes company data without a company access check.
Flag a route that lets an agent key reach another company. Flag a mutation with
no activity log entry. Flag an error response with an incorrect status code or
an error that hides a failure behind a success status. Do not flag a correct
status code only because it is not in the common list. Do not flag an
instance-level route for a missing company check.