DottaandPaperclip
e09f40888a
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip controls agent execution and task ownership. > - A native run needs its task binding until it reports its result. > - Direct task updates already reject self-status changes that remove this binding. > - Recovery resolution can also change the source task status. > - That route did not use the same protection. > - This change rejects the unsafe status change before the task or recovery receipt changes. > - The run can then use semantic completion while normal recovery permissions remain effective. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18411. **What happened?** A running native owner can resolve an older recovery action with `sourceIssueStatus: "in_review"` or `"done"`. The request succeeds and changes its own task status. That can release the execution binding before the run reports. Later task tools fail with `paperclip_runner_tool_binding_not_authorized`. **Expected behavior** Return a conflict before the task status or action receipt changes. Tell the run to report through `paperclip_finish` or `paperclip_block`. Preserve unchanged-status resolution, Board recovery, legacy-agent behavior, and the existing conversation and handoff rules. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Give a running native owner the task execution lock and an older recovery action. 2. Call `POST /api/issues/{id}/recovery-actions/resolve` as that run. Use `outcome: "restored"` and `sourceIssueStatus: "in_review"`. 3. Before this fix, the route returns 200 and changes the status. After this fix, it returns 409 with `native_run_status_reported_by_finish` and makes no task or action mutation. ## What Changed - Reuse the existing native self-status guard inside recovery resolution's source-task transaction. - Let the guard receive the requested status from either route contract. - Add HTTP route regressions for rejected review/completion transitions and continued task editing after rejection. - Cover unchanged-status native resolution, Board recovery and legacy-agent resolution. - Update execution semantics and both recovery maps. ## Verification - Baseline `91fdf02`: the two new rejection cases fail because the real Express route returns 200. Three safety cases pass. - Fixed source: all 198 tests in `server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` pass. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes. This is structural evidence. - Greptile and Paperclip Review both give the integrated head 5/5 with no actionable findings. - Full recursive typecheck, full build, and a repeat of all 198 route tests pass at integrated head `0fa104dfb240500acd01303cd446363ea39c6c75`. All current-head CI gates pass (55 successful checks/statuses; no failed or pending checks). - The full local `pnpm test:run` command fails in chat-test line selection with `No test found`, before assertions. This also occurs with the unchanged master chat test file. It is not a passing full local suite. - The route tests use the real route, validation and guard. They mock service and database boundaries. The observed hosted failure establishes the original mechanism. Fixed-source live provider acceptance remains unverified. No deployment or merge is part of this PR. ## Risks - A native owner now receives a conflict for a previously accepted recovery status change. It must use the existing semantic result path. - This prevents a new binding loss. It does not prove that an old remote executor stopped or recover missing provider state. - Board, legacy, conversation and handoff behavior retains existing authority. The regression includes representative allowed paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific snapshot ID 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 (198 focused route cases; the full local command has the recorded selection failure) - [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.
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.