Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip d0c8f0b090 fix: explain project access denials and add an authorized repair path (#17509)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Low-trust agents may read only the projects in their allowed scope.
> - Workspace setup correctly stops a task outside that scope.
> - The task previously showed a generic failure, and agent settings did
not offer an additive repair.
> - This pull request explains the denial and lets authorized operators
add projects while preserving other restrictions.
> - The saved task then offers an explicit retry. Saving access does not
start work.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**
A project access denial appeared as an ordinary failed attempt.
Operators could not add a second allowed project from agent settings.

**Expected behavior**
The task should explain the denied access and link to a working
permission editor. The editor should preserve existing scope and
restrictions, enforce operator authority, and retain drafts after a
failed save.

**Steps to reproduce**
1. Assign a low-trust agent to a task whose project is outside its
allowed projects.
2. Let workspace setup deny project access.
3. Open the task, follow Manage project access, add the project, save,
reload, and return to the task.
4. Confirm that the saved message remains and Retry task is a separate
action.

## What Changed

- Record a typed, non-retryable project denial before provider dispatch.
Project denials do not enter automatic continuation or provider comment
policy.
- Project current and historical setup denials into a safe task notice.
Keep unrelated failures, prior assignees, and approval/pause/budget
gates separate. Recheck current project authority, including standard
trust and root-issue grants. Accepted retries keep their working state.
- Add board-only project-access reads and additive saves under the agent
row lock. Enforce company scope, agent-management authority,
pending-approval restrictions, and an audit record for new additions.
- Add the production notice and searchable multi-project editor,
including read-only, saving, cancellation, and failed-save states.
Preserve the return-to-task query through canonical agent redirects.
- Register board-only project-access routes in OpenAPI with a strict
request schema.
- Add production Storybook examples and API/persistence/concurrency
regressions. Retain the approved design snapshot and update the behavior
maps and implementation contract.

## Verification

- Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `pnpm build-storybook`,
`pnpm check:token-gates`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `node
scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs`.
- Passed: 11 permission/projection tests and 30 run-completion tests
against an isolated PostgreSQL database. These cover historical
failures, concurrent additions, idempotent audit, preserved
restrictions, foreign projects, read-only users, agent self-grants, and
no automatic wakeup.
- Passed: all 27 OpenAPI route tests, including route coverage and the
new board-only request/response contract.
- Browser: the real app displayed a historical denial; Manage project
access opened the editor; saving retained the original project and
survived reload; Return to task showed the ready notice. Saving created
one audit event and zero runs. Explicit Retry returned 202 and reached
the separate sandbox requirement, which remained enforced. No external
provider was used.
- All five production Storybook interaction checks pass: blocked task,
save, cancellation, failed-save recovery, and read-only settings. These
use fixture callbacks; durable authorization is covered separately
above.
- `pnpm test:run` was attempted locally but stopped after repeated
embedded PostgreSQL startup failures caused by macOS semaphore
exhaustion. Full-suite CI is required before merge. The separate UI
suite passed all 9,095 tests. The 41 focused server regressions also
passed after rebasing onto the latest master. A further 26
recovery-classification tests pass, including a red-to-green regression
for automatic continuation after a project denial.

## Risks

- No schema migration. The new endpoint only adds same-company project
IDs and preserves the rest of the stored policy.
- The historical notice recognizes one exact setup denial message. It
does not display arbitrary run errors or disclose a different source
project's identity.
- The retry still passes all current admission and isolation checks. The
notice does not promise that other execution requirements are satisfied.
- Related open work: #13309 covers inherited secret restrictions; #11234
covers the broader repository catalog. This change does not replace
either policy surface.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code execution and browser tools. The precise
runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed in this
session.

## 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
#` 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 (focused server and full UI
suites; full-suite infrastructure limit above)
- [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>
2026-10-24 16:16:29 -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.

Capability identifiers

The feature ID is the recipe filename without .md, such as onboarding. The full capability ID joins that feature ID and a Sub-features key with /: the company key in feature-map/onboarding.md is onboarding/company. Its agent-access-map/onboarding.md companion uses the same local company key. The feature-map index lists the existing feature and full capability IDs.

Each child page states Feature ID: `onboarding`. after its introduction or product-map link. In feature recipes, show the full ID beside the parsed local key: - `company`: `onboarding/company` — create a company. In access companions and Storybook verification guidance, keep the existing local heading and put Capability ID: `onboarding/company`. beneath it. These labels make the existing identifiers visible without changing keys, anchors, or ID generation.

Use full capability IDs in cross-feature references, Storybook annotations, tests, issues, PRs, and verification evidence. Both segments use lowercase letters, digits, and hyphens. Keep filenames and keys stable when display titles or navigation labels change; renaming either changes the capability ID.

Entry-point IDs describe a surface, such as web-wizard, and are scoped to their recipe. Reference them with a recipe link, such as onboarding.md#web-wizard, and record the capability exercised separately. Navigation section labels are not capability IDs. See IDs and references for examples.

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, and its feature ID, followed by one H2 backticked local key per product sub-feature. Each capability starts with its full capability ID and 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 the affected cross-links together. Indexes discover recipes automatically. 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, navigation metadata, 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 generated maps/generated/coverage.json, which lists page references.

Local authorship and generated indexes

Change only the recipes, access contracts and stories whose behavior or intent changed. Feature recipes own navigation metadata; stories own small parameters.paperclip annotations. Keep the feature-map README's readable ID index aligned with those sources; it does not register entries for generation. Do not refresh counts in shared READMEs, inventories, fingerprints or review journals.

node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs validates and generates aggregate navigation, Storybook data, verification routes and the page inventory. All outputs live in ignored maps/generated/, ui/storybook/generated/, and the ignored Storybook preview.tsx wrapper. Start/build and UI typechecking generate their own inputs. A clean merged checkout therefore assembles both branches' changes automatically.

Git provides history and diffs. PRs, issues and CI artifacts retain review/run evidence for the named revision. Capability associations do not create whole-file review dependencies. Keep durable scenario limits in the affected recipe or story.