DottaandPaperclip
d40f9ac377
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people delegate work to agents and approve proposed work. > - The onboarding first task asks for scope, proposes a task, and waits for a human decision. > - An answer to its opening question supplies scope. It does not approve a proposal. > - Task creation already checks the saved proposal decision. > - Native completion used the general completion policy and could mark the onboarding parent Done without that decision. > - This PR checks the trusted decision before completion feedback and again when the native status is committed. > - The first task stays in review until a saved human decision permits closure. Ordinary completion and acknowledged refusal keep their current behavior. > - The Product E2E guard also retains closed scalar evidence so future failures show which boundary condition was observed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #17914. Profile compatibility follow-up to #17922. **What happened?** A native onboarding run can submit a valid low-risk Done result after only the opening answer. The native finalizer then marks the first task Done even though no human has accepted or rejected a proposal. **Expected behavior** The opening answer must not permit completion. A trusted saved proposal decision must permit it. A saved rejection permits acknowledgment and closure, but does not authorize new work. A later pending proposal must keep the task in review. **Steps to reproduce** Create a server-owned onboarding first task with an answered opening question, no proposal decision, and a valid low-risk completion contract. Pass a Done result through native completion feedback, the control-plane port, and the finalizer. Before this fix, the persisted status is Done. The regression expects In review. Ordinary completion and acknowledged rejection pass as controls. ## What Changed - Share the trusted latest-proposal and human-response checks with completion admission. Keep task creation acceptance-only. - Refuse premature native completion feedback. Keep an already saved premature result in review during finalization. - Check the decision again under the existing task and run locks before committing Done. - Cover accepted decisions, saved refusals, forged context, pending or changed proposals, and a real database race. - Retain a closed scalar receipt when the existing E2E pre-acceptance guard fails. Validate and display it without task content, IDs, filenames, or raw rows. Preserve the original failure, blocked dependents, and historical reports. - Include the evidence module in the journey definition hash. Bind the receipt to its exact failure code and check its closed keys against the full type. - Repair base-branch profile drift found by the full harness check: include the active Copilot v66 fixture in image hashing and update stale Pi version/hash expectations from #17922. Keep all older image inputs and strict hash checks. - Update the onboarding feature and agent access maps and E2E evidence documentation. ## Verification - Semantic regression before implementation: one failure and two passing controls on PostgreSQL 18. The failed assertion observed Done instead of In review. - The local database uses an owned disposable container with an immutable image digest. Actual migrations, feedback, control-plane port, finalizer, and status commit run against PostgreSQL. A temporary test adapter replaces only the embedded database transport because this host has exhausted its PostgreSQL semaphores. - Native control-plane suite: 55 tests passed, including 17 new controls. Existing task-creation admission: 25 passed. Existing completion feedback: 19 passed. - Credential-free E2E support: 206 Vitest suites passed, 4,407 tests passed, and two skipped. All 137 Node support checks passed. Harness typecheck passed. - The failure-receipt regression had 11 failed assertions before capture was implemented. Two failure-code binding assertions fail without their gate. Eight placement/binding cases first validate the receipt-free control, then reject the misplaced receipt. - The untouched base reproduced the three profile compatibility failures. The narrow repair passed all 83 affected tests before the full harness run. - Private workflow preparation and credential-free onboarding preview: nine compatibility checks passed. Ownership, recovery, evidence, shared-contract and workflow compatibility: 77 passed. The actual provider preview also confirms immediate success deletion, earlier declared failure eligibility, limits, and zero retries without credential access. Map checks and git diff checks passed. - Required repository typecheck passed for the product fix. The combined branch build passed. The local full repository suite was stopped after repeated PostgreSQL startup failures; a separate initdb probe confirmed host SysV semaphore exhaustion. No shared IPC resources were changed. [Hosted CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40591020873) passed the full database suites, typecheck, build, runner checks, serialized suites, and browser shards on final head `1ac4c23605a03bfd1f1f8a017b14ce29fda85f6b` (55 success, two expected skips, one advisory neutral). - Independent source review approved the product guard, atomic race regression, evidence contract, and maps with no actionable findings. Both automated reviews are 5/5 on final head `1ac4c23605a03bfd1f1f8a017b14ce29fda85f6b`; prior findings are fixed and resolved. Final CI is green and the PR is conflict-free. - No Cloud workspace, provider call, release publication, or deployment is part of this verification. These tests do not identify a historical Cloud failure or qualify live onboarding. - Local dependency installation uses the existing CI-generated lockfile from #17811. No lockfile change is included. ## Risks - Existing onboarding runs without a trusted saved proposal decision remain in review even when the agent reports success. This is the intended approval boundary. - Decision changes can race completion. The status commit checks the decision under its existing locks and uses the existing status-race recovery path. - A saved refusal permits closure only. Creation admission still rejects it. - Evidence readers reject malformed receipts and unrelated failure codes. The version-1 key registry is checked against every receipt field at compile time. Existing attempts do not gain evidence after the fact. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), ultra reasoning, through Codex. Used repository inspection, code execution, and collaborating coding agents. The runtime did not report a 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 references) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket 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: 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.