34f8d25089
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - GitHub review bots submit structured assessments through task-bound tools. > - Each repository can set its own finding categories. > - The schema accepts a string, but the server rejects values outside the saved review policy. > - Review instructions did not list the accepted values. The error did not list them either. > - This change gives agents the values before submission and keeps server validation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Review submissions failed with an unknown finding category. The agent corrected the assessment before publication. The sampled trace has two rejections followed by a processed review. Historical tool inputs are null. Authorized diagnostic inspection found no saved raw provider trace for the representative run. The exact rejected values remain unknown. **Expected behavior** Agents can find the accepted categories before submission. Unknown values still fail validation. **Steps to reproduce** Set a custom finding category. Start a review. Submit a different category. Before this change, the instructions and error do not list the accepted value. ## What Changed - List configured categories in manual and automatic review instructions. - Return categories from the saved assessment policy in `begin_review`. - Describe the dynamic constraint in the shared discovery schema. Keep custom categories valid. - List accepted values in category errors. Keep authorization and publication checks. - Add contract and database integration tests. Update documentation and access maps. ### Hypothesis and thesis for a fix The missing category guidance can cause avoidable submission retries. A model can also ignore the policy returned by metadata reads; the historical inputs do not establish which occurred. The repair belongs to the GitHub review contract. Use the saved policy categories at review start, explain the constraint, and retain server rejection. A fixed global enum would reject valid custom categories. ## Verification - Baseline `f1d7808`: two new contract assertions failed for missing category guidance and error detail. The same assertions pass after the change. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/chat-github-review-policy.test.ts server/src/services/chat-github-tools.test.ts`: 41 passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'returns snapshot finding categories'`: 1 passed. Real PostgreSQL and service code; simulated GitHub HTTP. Checks policy changes, rejection before publication, accepted custom category persistence, and processed publication. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed. Structural evidence only. - Shared TypeScript check passed. Server TypeScript checking was killed by the 8 GiB memory limit, including a separate retry after the other checks stopped. - Full typecheck and build could not complete: `cargo` is absent. Full tests were stopped after concurrent checks exhausted memory. CI must supply the full checks. - Follow-up compiler repair: the unchanged baseline reproduces TS2352 in the category discovery test. Runtime matchers replace the unsafe schema cast. They retain both guidance and custom-category assertions. The repair is commit `0dcb94c676`, with current master merged at `14d7052854`. The final head is `c46b8f35add9255fc71be294d27f5a7865bcb47f`; the remaining code-comment review finding was removed and resolved. - Final-head CI: all gates pass, with no failed or pending checks. Greptile gives this head 5/5 with no outstanding findings; the only inline thread is resolved. The workspace test shard passed on one bounded rerun after an earlier CLI child-server readiness timeout; no code change was made for that rerun. - The review host passed full recursive typecheck and build after the compiler repair and master integration. Fresh database rechecks hit the host PostgreSQL semaphore limit. The full local test command hit a pre-existing chat line-selection failure before assertions. These local limits do not replace the passing final-head CI evidence. - No live model or GitHub publication at the changed revision. No deployment or merge. ## Risks - Instructions add policy text. An agent can still ignore it. - Existing bot catalogs get the schema description when tools are synchronized. Trusted review instructions and `begin_review` also expose categories. - The service test uses simulated GitHub HTTP. It does not prove that deployed agents avoid retries. ## Model Used The original worker used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. A later Codex review repaired the test compiler error. That review runtime exposes GPT-6 but no exact snapshot or 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: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com> Co-authored-by: cryppadotta <34892728+cryppadotta@users.noreply.github.com>
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.
The chat scenario catalog uses these same IDs for human requests and expected outcomes. Its scenarios retain the access boundaries here; neither a CEO role nor a planned scenario grants board authority or establishes a working production tool binding.
Use full capability IDs when referring to access contracts outside their file:
onboarding/company means the company capability in onboarding.md in both maps.
The feature index lists feature and
capability IDs; IDs and references
explains entry-point references and stable naming.
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 is enabled by default, but explicit server,
company-allowlist and binding settings can narrow admission. It requires 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.
Connection-management reads support Standard, Ask and Plan; mutations require
Standard. Skill-test runs and nonstandard task-bridge keys cannot administer
connections. These gates supplement each operation's grants, resolved resource
and target scope, and responsible-user authority. See the
rollout policy
and connection authorization.
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.