DottaandPaperclip
3f1ad6b25b
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through task and execution ownership. > - A task Retry must retain the user's request while the system verifies an old executor. > - Connected conversations also retain their external principal and accepted source batch. > - Chat Retry admission required containment before it could save a wait for that recovery. > - A saved chat receipt could also remain deferred after containment became available. > - This pull request lets the exact recovery-bound request wait and resume through its chat owner. > - Normal admission still checks containment, current access and policy before one successor starts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An ordinary task Retry on a connected conversation failed with `failed_chat_retry_not_authorized` while its retained remote executor still needed verification. The new recovery generation existed, but the chat action failed before it could save a dispatch wait. This occurred after the repairs in #17267 were confirmed live. The local regression found a second gap. A processed chat action with a deferred wake was not reconsidered after containment. Re-entering normal admission also tried to insert its existing durable receipt again. A historical hold for the same failed run could also hide the current Retry's workspace strategy, so the request still waited after the old executor was contained. Preparation could then read that sibling instead of the recovery record that owned the fresh successor, losing the fresh-workspace decision. **Expected behavior** Save the exact authorized Retry while its matching recovery generation verifies the executor. Once containment is recorded, reconsider the same chat receipt through normal admission. Start one successor with the original source batch. Keep publication, principal, pause and budget checks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Admit a GitHub or Telegram request and record a failed native run with a retained remote lease. 2. Leave the executor's termination unconfirmed and exhaust its prior recovery generation. 3. Use ordinary task Retry to create a new recovery generation. 4. Process the connected Retry. The old admission code fails instead of retaining a wait. 5. With a deferred receipt, record exact containment and reconcile again. The old dispatch path leaves it stranded. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from `412914cfa78d5abefcc34d3eb8d4bb86e461caac`. The branch is rebased onto current master. **Deployment mode** Hosted tenant for the reported failure. Isolated local PostgreSQL and the assembled heartbeat/chat services for the regression. Refs #17267 and #16965. This change does not add a Cloud dependency or change the absence protocol. ## What Changed - Permit a saved admission wait only for the exact current task Retry and active source recovery generation. - Keep promotion and execution dependent on independent containment proof. - Bind a Retry to active automatic recovery without replacing its generation, attempt count or deadline. - Share the current exact Retry strategy across historical holds for the same run. Retain each hold's stop and effect checks. - Select the canonical recovery record that proves the committed fresh successor during workspace preparation. - Let task receipt reconciliation return the same deferred action to its chat owner. - Recheck current board and external authority, then update the existing wake atomically with its successor. - Preserve the exact chat source batch. Keep generic board-comment filtering unchanged. - Add GitHub and Telegram cases for waiting, containment, one successor, stale generations, source edits, endpoint pause and supersession. - Update recovery documentation and capability maps. ## Verification - Red: real PostgreSQL tests reproduced the admission rejection for GitHub and Telegram. Six active-recovery cases then failed on the generation-ID assumption. Two same-run historical-hold cases remained deferred after containment on the old strategy lookup. A preparation regression then returned no readiness when the historical hold was stored first. - Green: 73 selected chat integration tests and 394 continuation, task Retry, workspace recovery, recovery-state and workspace-preparation tests passed. The chat tests use the real chat admission and heartbeat queue. Unrelated capacity stays occupied so no real provider starts. They assert no executor before containment, one successor afterward, unchanged source leases while waiting, preserved recovery budgets, and denial after authority changes. A separate source hold still blocks work. Both sibling insertion orders pass through the committed-readiness lookup and real workspace preparation: the new directory has independent Git storage and files, and unpublished old work remains intact. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed after the review fixes. The source build passed on `f6660efa48e37a80cd9857217a537606de85b5c8`. - The local host reached its PostgreSQL semaphore limit. Successful runs used a test-only loader to reduce disposable cluster connection and worker limits. No repository database helper or application setting changed. - The full local `pnpm test:run` began before the final review edits, failed in its first server phase and was stopped after those failures. Later phases did not run. This is not a full local pass. The transient Retry-notice case passes after fixture isolation; the four Discord close-owned publication cases also pass in isolation. Other broad-run failure causes are not established. - Exact-head CI and security checks pass on `f6660efa48e37a80cd9857217a537606de85b5c8`; Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved review threads. Optional Paperclip Review completed neutral with a 5/5 static assessment of all 11 changed files and no findings; it did not run tests or hosted acceptance. All 57 current-head checks are terminal: 54 success, two skipped and the optional neutral review, with no failures or pending checks. - The real hosted workflow confirmed that the deployed absence repair recorded containment. A later ordinary UI Retry was accepted and saved a durable request, but it remains behind the historical source hold. The useful existing review remains unchanged. This follow-up is not deployed; a live successful successor and final task disposition remain unverified. No missing files are claimed recovered. ## Risks - The existing task reconciliation sweep can restage a deferred chat action. This reuses its receipt and generation; it does not grant new execution or publication authority. - Dispatch must keep the board Retry identity separate from the connected request's principal. The regression checks these bindings and preserves current chat authorization at each phase. - Historical holds reuse a strategy only from the locked same-run recovery that names the current Retry intent. A different run, malformed recovery record or independent source hold remains fenced. - Unknown executors without a matching active recovery still fail admission. Promotion and execution require containment even when admission saved a wait. - No schema or API shape changes. No credential changes, manual deployment or service restart. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools, code execution and browser verification. The exact served model variant 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] 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.