mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-16 05:17:41 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
7d9b93aee2
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## 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 - [ ] 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 Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
52 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
52 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
# Secrets, personal credentials, and proposals
|
|
|
|
Operators manage company secret references, users supply their own credentials where required, and reviewers decide proposed secret changes without exposing secret values in ordinary UI evidence.
|
|
|
|
Implementation: [secrets page](../../ui/src/pages/Secrets.tsx), [personal secrets](../../ui/src/pages/secrets/MyUserSecretsTab.tsx), [proposals](../../ui/src/pages/secrets/ProposalsTab.tsx).
|
|
|
|
Agent access: [companion](../agent-access-map/secrets.md).
|
|
|
|
## Sub-features
|
|
|
|
- `company-secrets`: create/update secret references and control their bindings.
|
|
- `user-secrets`: define required user credentials and set a value for the current user.
|
|
- `proposals`: review proposed changes with the appropriate authority.
|
|
- `vault-import`: import eligible external-vault references through the offered flow.
|
|
- `runtime-delivery`: deliver only the secret references authorized for the run/actor.
|
|
|
|
## How to get to it (user POV)
|
|
|
|
### `secret-management`
|
|
|
|
Open company Settings → Secrets and the company/personal secret views.
|
|
|
|
### `proposal-import`
|
|
|
|
Use the Proposals tab or Import from vault where available.
|
|
|
|
## Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
|
|
|
|
Preconditions: follow the [baseline](./README.md#before-driving-a-journey). Use dummy credentials in an isolated company, two user identities, and a test agent. Never print actual secret values in evidence.
|
|
|
|
### `secret-management`
|
|
|
|
Automated: [secrets service](../../server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts) and [user ownership](../../server/src/__tests__/secrets-service-user-secret-owner-scoped.test.ts) cover storage/access contracts.
|
|
|
|
Manual: Create a dummy secret reference, bind it through a supported field, and verify its use in a harmless run without logging the value. Update it and reload. Switch users and confirm personal values remain owner-scoped and missing credentials produce an actionable state.
|
|
|
|
### `proposal-import`
|
|
|
|
Automated: [proposal routes](../../server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts) and [vault import dialog](../../ui/src/pages/secrets/ImportFromVaultDialog.test.tsx) cover route/UI layers; a real vault integration needs live validation.
|
|
|
|
Manual: Review a dummy proposal, reject one and accept another, then inspect the resulting reference state and history. Preview a vault import, select only disposable entries, and verify imported references and denied-access errors after reload.
|
|
|
|
## Gotchas
|
|
|
|
- Vault import currently targets eligible AWS Secrets Manager providers.
|
|
Organization-secret checks in local-trusted mode do not establish two-user
|
|
personal-secret ownership or actual external-vault import.
|
|
|
|
- A displayed reference name is not proof that the actor can resolve its value at runtime.
|
|
- Company secrets and user-specific values have different ownership.
|
|
- Redaction needs verification in errors, activity, and run logs as well as the form.
|