Nicky LeachandPaperclip
79b2bf78dd
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Core onboarding selects an agent and connects its provider account. > - The current flow creates the agent record after authentication. > - Setup needs a stable agent identity as soon as the user submits its name. > - This PR saves a paused setup record on name submission and finishes the hire on that same record. > - The existing sandbox authentication and approval paths continue to apply. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Core agent lifecycle, shared validators, and onboarding UI. **Current behavior** Onboarding creates the database record at the final hire step. Earlier authentication and saved setup have no agent record. **Proposed behavior** Create a paused agent with a setup hold when the user submits its name. Do this before adapter selection or authentication. Update that same record after adapter selection. Reuse its ID on retries and saved setup. Finish that record through the existing hire path. **Reason and benefit** Give setup a stable identity without coupling this refactor to computer provisioning or a new execution backend. **Breaking changes** Incomplete setup now leaves an inactive agent record. Existing clients can still create and hire agents without the new optional fields. The sandbox authentication flow and API key support remain in place. **Additional context** Requested Core-only refactor. Related work: #15422 changes runner defaults. This PR preserves those choices. No duplicate early-record refactor was found in the issue and PR search. ## What Changed - Save the agent when the user submits its name in both onboarding entry points. Use a provisional adapter until the user chooses one. Reopen name-only drafts at adapter selection. - Add retry-safe setup creation and same-record hire completion. Keep approval checks at final hire. - Save and restore setup configuration in both onboarding entry points. Show Finish setup for paused setup agents. - Restrict setup changes to authorized board users. Block generic resume until setup finishes. - Add lifecycle, authorization, connection, and UI coverage. Update the specification and feature maps. ## Verification - Latest focused server run: 126 lifecycle and AI-connection tests passed after the Apex fixes. An earlier broader run passed 301 lifecycle, instruction, adapter-validation, and AI-connection tests. Earlier authentication, retry, cross-company, and direct-create regressions also passed. - Name-save verification: 336 tests across the wizard, naming dialog, New agent, action-button, and wizard-step suites passed. Coverage includes retry identity, repeated submission, closing during a save, saved-model restoration, and a disabled process adapter. - Shared, server, and UI TypeScript checks passed. The latest UI package check and direct server TypeScript check passed. The server package preparation command could not finish locally because Cargo is unavailable; full build preparation runs in CI. Map checks, token gates, and `git diff --check` passed; each pushed diff was scanned for credentials and PII. - All six onboarding browser tests passed together with installed Chrome against a fresh throwaway instance after the Apex fixes. They include numbered duplicate names, first-time Copilot without a connected account, and Grok’s saved model. They verify early persistence in both entry points, closing and reopening a name-only draft, same-record adapter selection, sandbox sign-in, login reload, and failed-connection gating. Provider responses are simulated; Core persistence is real. - Regression coverage includes incomplete Copilot creation versus final validation, Kimi settings through redacted responses, stale local drafts, company switches during creation, saved environments, and provider changes with personal/shared old bindings. - Apex found five name-only setup gaps: numbered names, early Copilot account validation, the Grok model default, same-name draft ownership, and provisional runner restoration. The fixes preserve server names, defer implicit account binding until hire, set Grok’s model, avoid name-based reuse of unfinished records, and restore Auto for pending adapter choices. UI, database, and browser regressions cover these cases. - Standard Greptile found a Grok provider mismatch in the new adapter save. The save now uses ACPX with the Grok profile. Both the 129-test dialog/setup run and a real-API browser regression passed after the fix. The first browser attempt stopped on an ambiguous empty-roster button selector; it now scopes the click to the toolbar. - Moving the save point exposed a saved-model reset and timing assumptions in the same-name and portal fixtures. The source choice now preserves the restored model, and tests cover same-name recovery without a second hire. - Initial CI exposed direct-create compatibility, concurrent setup effects, fixture assumptions, and a missing-fields assumption in the provider-validation guard. These were fixed and verified locally. Review findings were addressed with authorization, recovery, credential-persistence, and restored-configuration regressions. - The final desktop capture passed after host resource cleanup. A repeat first failed before Core started because macOS had exhausted shared-memory IDs. Standalone PostgreSQL initialization reproduced the same error. Releasing only unattached control segments from this task’s stopped test databases allowed the unchanged revision to pass. No Core or system setting changed. - Local database tests required port access outside the sandbox. Missing declared development dependencies were supplied outside the branch. No live provider sign-in was tested locally. - [Full monorepo CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39522434236) is green on `82b82fec189a172a885d4dd565ae2f4a18c73efc`. Standard Greptile scored 5/5 with zero new comments (check `118969424903`). The subsequent Apex review also scored 5/5 with zero new comments (check `118972866331`) on that same commit. All review threads are resolved. - The separate Superagent Security scan returned neutral/inconclusive because its pinned merge-base checkout failed or timed out. GitHub returned 404 for check and suite rerun requests. This is not a successful security scan; the CI workflow and other security checks passed. ## Risks - Users can leave inactive setup records behind, including after name submission alone. These records cannot run until hire completes. - Setup completion touches hiring and approval boundaries. Tests cover retries, company isolation, creator permissions, and approval snapshots. - An uncertain credential-save result retains its new secret reference for retry. A confirmed client rejection removes only credentials staged by that attempt. - No schema migration or VM provisioning change is required. Agent-computer integration is out of scope. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository search, code editing, and tool execution. The exact deployment ID and context window are 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 #` / `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] Apex Greptile is also 5/5 on the same commit as standard review and green CI - [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.
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 requires operator rollout admission, 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.
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.