## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The board selects a company before it loads that company's inbox and
tasks.
> - Instance administrators can list companies where they have no
membership.
> - The board treated that directory as a list of companies the user
could enter.
> - This pull request gives navigation a list based on the existing
company access check.
> - Users can select their companies without landing on an inbox that
rejects their access.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#6090. Refs #4855 for the related account-recovery case; this PR
does not grant company membership.
**What happened?**
An instance administrator can select a company where they have no
membership. Its inbox then shows “User does not have access to this
company.” Company directory visibility and access to company contents
use different rules.
**Expected behavior**
Company navigation should show only companies the current user can
enter. A stored selection for an inaccessible company should fall back
to an accessible company. A direct link to an inaccessible company
should use the existing unavailable-company page.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create Company A and Company B with separate owners.
2. Sign in as an instance administrator who belongs only to Company A.
3. Select Company B through a stored selection or a link with its
prefix.
4. Observe that the board accepts the company selection, but
company-scoped requests return 403.
Related: #10524 lets cloud users enter additional companies where they
hold memberships. This fix preserves that access and excludes companies
where they have no membership.
## What Changed
- Added `scope=accessible` to `GET /api/companies`, using the existing
`hasCompanyAccess` predicate.
- Changed the board navigation list to request that scope. Instance
Access uses a separate unscoped, account-keyed directory so
administrators can manage all companies. Membership edits refresh
navigation.
- Reject empty, unknown, and repeated scope values with 400. Directory
loading errors offer a retry before access controls are shown.
- Added route tests for cloud, session, board-key, local trusted,
non-member, and agent access.
- Added client and component tests for navigation/admin request
isolation, grants outside the navigation list, self-membership refresh,
directory failure recovery, and forbidden administration.
- Updated the API guide and OpenAPI document.
## Verification
- Latest commit: 36 focused UI tests passed. The broader UI shard passed
all 281 files / 2,533 tests after correcting an asynchronous test
assertion.
- Server authorization and OpenAPI regression suites: 31 tests passed.
- UI typecheck and `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed after review fixes.
- Full local test runner: exercised the supported shards. Several
unrelated suites hit embedded PostgreSQL startup failures or startup
timeouts under local load. The UI regression issue found in the broad
run was corrected and its full UI shard passed. These local limitations
are not reported as a green full-suite result.
- [GitHub
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34233416473):
all checks green on `4e1698cd4` — all server and workspace test shards,
all browser end-to-end shards, typecheck/release registry, build, canary
dry run, policy, and Docker context integrity. Security checks also
passed.
- Greptile: 5/5 on the latest commit; both initial findings addressed
and all review threads resolved.
## Risks
- The UI now excludes companies visible only through instance
administrator status. Company membership continues to control access to
contents.
- Additional companies with active memberships remain available.
- The client and server changes must ship together. An older server
ignores the new query parameter and retains the previous behavior.
- No database migration or permission grant changes.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection,
code editing, and test execution. The exact served model identifier 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents need scoped secret bindings to use external services safely.
> - Agents could not request an existing secret under a new config name
without an internal secret identifier.
> - Existing binding proposals were only visible in Settings and did not
create an issue-thread approval path.
> - A confirmation card could record acceptance without proving that the
binding was created.
> - This pull request extends the existing secret proposal system with
safe source references and governed issue-thread confirmation cards.
> - The benefit is a one-click flow that creates the binding or shows a
clear failure without exposing secret material.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related prerequisite: #11482.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server REST APIs, shared interaction contracts, database
proposal schema, and issue-thread UI.
**Problem or motivation**
An agent can need an existing bound secret under a second config name.
The agent cannot safely discover the internal secret identifier. The
existing proposal is also easy for the operator to miss because it only
appears in Settings. A generic confirmation can record acceptance
without executing the binding.
**Proposed solution**
Let an agent create a binding proposal from one of its existing config
paths. Mint a server-owned, human-only confirmation card on the
checked-out issue. Recheck the operator's target-agent permission under
the proposal row lock. Execute the existing proposal transaction after
card acceptance. Store an `executed` or `failed` result on the card.
Render the complete lifecycle in the issue thread and attention
resolver.
**Alternatives considered**
A new alias subsystem would duplicate proposal quotas, expiry,
authorization, and binding synchronization. A text-only issue comment
would not provide a governed action or an execution result. An
agent-supplied card payload would permit metadata smuggling. This change
uses the existing proposal transaction and a server-owned payload
instead.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change extends the completed "Secrets Manager with per-agent
access" roadmap item. It preserves scoped bindings and audited
resolution. The required GitHub search found no other open duplicate
issue or pull request.
## What Changed
- Added safe source-config-path binding proposals and preserved
user-secret ownership checks.
- Added a proposal-to-interaction link and an idempotent database
migration.
- Minted human-only `request_confirmation` cards with server-owned
`secretProposal` metadata.
- Rejected agent-supplied governed metadata and agent addressees.
- Rechecked `agent_config:update` authority under the proposal lock
before execution.
- Recorded `executed` or `failed` results and posted a failure comment
when no binding was created.
- Settled failed accepted proposals atomically and mirrored rejection,
withdrawal, and expiry in both directions.
- Emitted `secret.binding.created` for new agent binding writes.
- Added a dedicated issue-thread card for pending, executed, failed,
rejected, withdrawn, and expired states.
- Showed only the source label, target agent, config path, skeptical
justification, expiry, and safe failure code.
- Replaced resolved attention-query entries immediately with the
stitched server result.
- Added focused server, database, UI, and state-transition tests.
- Added Storybook fixtures for every review state and documented the API
and agent behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/AttentionInteractionResolver.test.ts` — 58 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm build-storybook`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts` — 142
passed.
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts --silent` — 1 passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run` — server 4,175 passed, UI 4,109 passed; the CLI
AWS-doctor case passes 8/8 with runtime-injected static AWS credential
variables unset.
- `pnpm build`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
## Risks
- Migration `0221` adds one nullable foreign key and one index. It uses
idempotent guards.
- The accept route performs a governed write after it records card
acceptance. A failed write is visible and settles the proposal as
rejected.
- Concurrent proposal and card resolution must use
proposal-before-interaction lock order. A race test covers direct
approval against card rejection.
- The new audit event increases activity rows for newly added agent
bindings. It does not include secret values or fingerprints.
- The card includes only safe proposal metadata. It does not include
secret value, fingerprint, version, or internal secret identifiers.
- The UI uses the stitched resolution result. Focused tests cover
immediate cache replacement and every terminal state.
> This work extends an existing completed roadmap capability. The GitHub
duplicate search returned no other open related work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose its
context-window size. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution,
database integration tests, UI rendering, and GitHub tools were enabled.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision
record.
> - Resolver routes used different authorization rules.
> - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with
normal issue access.
> - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction.
> - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy
evaluator.
> - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and
company isolation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes: #8087
Refs: #7403
Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change
keeps human-only review as an explicit policy.
**What happened?**
Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still
required board access.
This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see
the same problem without board identity.
**Expected behavior**
Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract.
The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It
must also apply all normal governance controls.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent.
2. Resolve it with another authorized agent.
3. Observe the board-only denial.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The problem exists on `master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with `pnpm dev`.
## What Changed
- Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`.
- Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind.
- Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task
watchdog scope.
- Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit.
- Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction
data.
- Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board
UI.
- Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression
fixtures.
- Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior.
- Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior
runs.
## Product Rules
- An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the
next action.
- `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond.
- `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator.
- `human_only` requires an authorized person.
- A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the
audience.
- These controls cannot widen the audience.
- A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent.
- A task watchdog does not receive board authority.
- An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue
action limit.
- Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions.
- The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts`
- The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice.
- The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing
provenance.
- The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks.
- The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected.
- Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments.
## Risks
- New interaction writes use `anyone` by default.
- Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need
stricter review.
- Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human
restrictions.
- Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery.
- Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit.
- The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind.
- Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these
rules.
> This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in
`ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID
or context window.
The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test
execution.
## 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the
required labels
- [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented the risks
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip provides CLI commands and guidance for operators and
agents
> - The `pnpm paperclipai` script can pass argument values through a
shell
> - Shell re-parsing can execute command substitutions inside quoted
values
> - This pull request routes guidance through inert-argv `npx
paperclipai` commands and adds regression coverage
> - The benefit is safer operator guidance across documentation and
runtime hints
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This pull request fixes a command-injection-class defect in Paperclip
CLI guidance.
**What happened?**
The `pnpm paperclipai <sub> --flag "$VALUE"` form can re-parse argument
values through a shell. A command substitution inside a quoted value can
execute on the host.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip guidance must pass CLI values as inert argument values.
Host-derived values must not appear in copyable commands.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a Paperclip guidance command that uses the `pnpm paperclipai`
script.
2. Provide a quoted value that contains a command substitution.
3. Observe that the shell can evaluate the substitution before the CLI
starts.
4. Compare the result with the `npx paperclipai` form.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`5670984b75d109950c968542a0111ebb6967f4da`
**Deployment mode**
All deployment modes that show or use the affected CLI guidance.
**Installation method**
Built from source and installed CLI guidance.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific (core bug).
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
**Access context**
Both.
**Additional context**
The earlier merged PR
[#11343](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11343) used the
unsafe `pnpm exec paperclipai` form. This fresh PR replaces that
guidance with the safe `npx paperclipai` form.
## What Changed
- Standardize documentation and runtime hints on `npx paperclipai`.
- Remove the broken `pnpm exec paperclipai` guidance.
- Use a static `<host>` placeholder in private-hostname guidance.
- Add regression tests for unsafe forms, continued lines, static hosts,
and offline guidance.
## Verification
- `git diff --check
origin/master...origin/fix/paperclipai-cli-npx-safe-invocation` passes.
- The branch adds `server/src/__tests__/cli-invocation-safety.test.ts`
and updates private-hostname tests.
- CI must run the new tests, typecheck, lint, and build checks.
- Local Vitest execution was not available because this worktree has no
installed Vitest binary.
## Risks
- The change affects operator and agent documentation text.
- The runtime hints now show `<host>` instead of a request-derived host
value.
- No database schema or migration changes exist.
- CI will detect any missed unsafe invocation or type error.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5, exact model ID `gpt-5`, with tool use and code-review
assistance. The model used repository inspection, Git operations, and PR
preparation.
## 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] CI ran the test suites and they pass; local test execution was
unavailable in this worktree
- [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 addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting
merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip provides CLI guidance to agents and operators through
documentation and runtime messages.
> - Content-bearing `pnpm paperclipai` examples send arguments through a
shell.
> - Shell evaluation can execute command substitutions in untrusted
argument content.
> - Runtime hostname guidance can also place request-derived content
inside a shell command.
> - This pull request uses `npx paperclipai` for content-bearing
guidance and uses a static hostname placeholder.
> - The benefit is safer copy-paste guidance for agents and operators.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Issue type**
Incorrect information
**Where is the issue?**
CLI guidance in `doc/CLI.md`, `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md`,
documentation, and runtime-generated hints.
**What's wrong?**
Content-bearing `pnpm paperclipai` commands can pass argument text
through `/bin/sh`. Shell command substitution in an argument can execute
before the CLI receives the value.
**Suggested fix**
Use `npx paperclipai` for content-bearing commands. Use a static
`<host>` placeholder when runtime guidance displays the allowed-hostname
command.
## What Changed
- Replace content-bearing `pnpm paperclipai` examples with `npx
paperclipai` across the documentation and agent-facing guidance.
- Update runtime-generated CLI hints to use a static `<host>`
placeholder.
- Add safety notes to `doc/CLI.md` and `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md`.
- Add scans and regression tests for unsafe invocation and hostile
hostname headers.
- Keep fixed lifecycle commands and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/*` build
commands unchanged.
## Verification
- Run `tsc --noEmit` for the changed server files.
- Run `cli-invocation-safety.test.ts`.
- Run `private-hostname-guard.test.ts`.
- Confirm that hostile hostname headers do not enter shown shell
commands.
- Confirm that the three commits contain the required Paperclip
co-author trailer.
## Risks
- This change updates documentation and diagnostic text across many
surfaces.
- Fixed lifecycle and setup commands remain unchanged.
- The tests fail if content-bearing `pnpm paperclipai` guidance returns.
- The change does not alter the CLI argument parser.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use, code execution, and repository review
assistance.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane that lets humans govern companies of
AI agents.
> - Issue-thread interactions are the structured handoff point for
confirmations, questions, suggested tasks, and other governed decisions.
> - Those interactions previously assumed that only board users could
resolve them, preventing one agent from explicitly addressing another
agent for a response.
> - Agent resolution needs company-level governance, auditable resolver
identity, safe terminal-state handling, and attention routing so
authorization is enforced server-side rather than inferred from UI
behavior.
> - This pull request adds governed agent resolution, withdrawal and
terminal expiry semantics, explicit agent addressees, lifecycle
reconciliation, and attention-feed filtering.
> - The benefit is that agents can participate in structured decisions
without weakening board control, company isolation, wake behavior, or
audit invariants.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Issue-thread interactions across database, shared contracts, server
authorization/services, adapter callbacks, agent skill guidance, API
docs, and UI governance surfaces.
### Problem or motivation
Structured interactions were board-only, had no explicit agent
addressee, and lacked durable withdrawal/terminal-expiry semantics. That
made peer-agent decisions impossible to authorize and audit safely.
### Proposed solution
Persist requested/effective resolver policy and addressee identity,
enforce company governance and eligible agent resolution, reconcile
addressee lifecycle changes, expose withdrawal and terminal expiry, and
route attention to the intended active agent with board fallback.
### Alternatives considered
Implicitly authorizing the issue assignee or mentioned agents was
rejected as ambiguous and difficult to audit. Using comments alone was
rejected because it loses structured outcomes and continuation behavior.
### Roadmap alignment
Supports the ROADMAP direction for lightweight leadership-agent
communication that still resolves into governed decisions and work
objects.
### Additional context
Public GitHub issue/PR search found no duplicate implementation; open PR
search for interaction resolver governance and agent addressees only
returned this PR.
## What Changed
- Add company-scoped interaction resolver governance contracts and
persistence.
- Add requested/effective resolver policy, resolver identity,
withdrawal, and terminal-expiry behavior.
- Add explicit `addresseeAgentId` validation, authorization,
persistence, lifecycle reconciliation, API documentation, and skill
guidance.
- Route pending addressed interactions to the intended invokable agent
and fall back to board attention when that agent becomes ineligible or
is deleted.
- Preserve sandbox callback identity fields required by governed
resolution paths.
- Add migrations `0193` and `0194` plus route, service, attention,
adapter, CLI, and UI coverage.
- Add governance state and company settings UI, including responsive
mobile behavior and distinct withdrawn/expired audit presentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety
checks.
- `pnpm test:run` — feature/server and UI workspace suites passed; one
unrelated CLI AWS doctor test observed injected static AWS credentials
and warned instead of passing.
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest
run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts --project paperclipai` — 8 tests
passed, confirming the failure was environment-sensitive.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- Latest rebased head `e24cece6be9f1877bdbac7691bcb44fd583c0161`
completed all GitHub CI jobs successfully.
## Risks
- Migrations add interaction and company-governance fields; numbering is
conflict-free on current `master`, additive statements are idempotent,
and migration safety checks pass.
- Agent authorization behavior expands beyond board-only resolution, but
defaults remain board-only and coverage exercises company boundaries,
resolver eligibility, lifecycle invalidation, wake behavior, withdrawal,
expiry, and attention fallback.
- Attention routing depends on current agent invokability;
reconciliation and read-time filtering prevent stale addressees from
retaining visibility or resolution authority.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.6-sol` with reasoning, terminal tool use,
code execution, Git/GitHub integration, and Paperclip control-plane
tools. Context-window metadata was not reported by the runtime.
## 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 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>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents update tasks through the issue API.
> - The update response did not state which values changed.
> - Blocker updates also did not echo the scalar blocker IDs.
> - Agents therefore used an extra GET request to confirm a successful
write.
> - This pull request adds an authoritative change receipt and an
optional small response.
> - The benefit is fewer API calls with a clear and compatible write
contract.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change.
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and the UI issue cache.
### Problem or motivation
A successful issue PATCH returned the updated issue, but it did not
identify the effective changes. Blocker writes returned relation
summaries without the scalar IDs. Agents could not distinguish a
confirmed clear operation from missing data. The response must confirm
committed field and blocker changes while existing UI clients continue
to receive the full issue by default.
### Proposed solution
Add a `changes` receipt. Add a conditional `blockedByIssueIds` echo.
Support `Prefer: return=minimal`. Keep the full response as the default.
### Alternatives considered
Make the small response the default for agent tokens. This would create
different response contracts by actor type, so this pull request does
not use that design.
### Roadmap alignment
This is a focused control-plane reliability improvement. It does not
duplicate an open roadmap milestone.
## What Changed
- Compute committed issue row and relation changes in the issue service.
- Omit no-op fields and truncate changed long text values to 200
characters.
- Echo blocker ID arrays for blocker set and clear requests.
- Add the opt-in `Prefer: return=minimal` response and
`Preference-Applied` header.
- Keep receipt metadata out of React Query issue caches.
- Add route and embedded Postgres tests for the new contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"returns authoritative update receipts for row fields and blocker
relations"`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- Low compatibility risk. The default response only adds receipt fields.
- Minimal mode is opt-in. Existing clients do not receive a smaller
body.
- The receipt excludes `updatedAt` because the response already returns
it as the freshness anchor.
- Prose API and agent workflow guidance will follow after the server
contract is available.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID, context window
size, and reasoning mode are not exposed to the agent. The agent used
repository tools, code execution, and test execution.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Execution policies let issues move through enforced review and
approval stages before work is considered done.
> - Active reviewers and approvers must include decision rationale when
approving or requesting changes.
> - The server already requires the decision comment to arrive in the
same `PATCH /api/issues/:id` request as the status change.
> - When callers post a normal comment first and then send a status-only
`PATCH`, the existing 422 only says a comment is required.
> - This pull request keeps the atomic decision behavior but makes the
API error and docs explicit about the same-request requirement.
> - The benefit is that agents and API clients can recover immediately
by sending `{ status, comment }` together instead of dead-ending on an
ambiguous validation error.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#9049.
Duplicate/related search completed before implementation: searched open
PRs for `9049`, `Approving a review or approval stage requires a
comment`, `Requesting changes requires a comment`, and `same PATCH`. I
did not find a direct open PR for the same error-message/docs fix.
Related PRs found but not duplicates: #8302 documents cross-agent review
gates in the skill API reference, and #5487 covers human approval UI.
## What Changed
- Expanded execution-policy 422 messages for approve and request-changes
decisions to say the comment must be included in the same `PATCH`
request and prior comments are not considered.
- Tightened unit coverage so the comment-required branches assert the
new actionable guidance.
- Documented the same-request `{ status, comment }` decision shape in
the execution policy guide, issue API reference, and agent communication
guide.
## Verification
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts --reporter verbose`
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk exec node
../../../scripts/ensure-plugin-build-deps.mjs`
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
Low risk. This does not change execution-policy state transitions or
relax the atomic decision guard; it only makes the existing requirement
explicit in errors and docs.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex (GPT-5 Codex), operating in Codex desktop with repository
file access, shell validation, and GitHub CLI workflow. Exact context
window size is not surfaced by this environment.
## 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: Sami Rusani <sr@samirusani>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies.
> - Agents already receive selected company secrets through `env.*`
bindings at run launch, but environment injection is ambient,
long-lived, and not suitable for every secret consumer.
> - The existing binding and secret-access-event models already provide
company-scoped authorization and per-resolution audit seams.
> - Agents need an explicit way to discover only the secrets granted to
them and fetch a value on demand without exposing the wider company
catalog.
> - That capability must remain run-bound, preserve low-trust token
carve-outs, and make every value read visible in both security and
operator audit trails.
> - This pull request adds an `access.*` delivery namespace, two
run-bound agent routes, dual audit logging, documentation, and an
operator grants editor.
> - The benefit is least-privilege, revocable, auditable secret access
while preserving existing env injection behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public issue. Related work:
- Refs #9797 — existing in-sheet agent access UI that this PR extends to
distinguish env and API delivery.
- Refs #9918 — complementary searchable-agent picker improvement for the
same secrets sheet.
- Refs #9530 — related company-wide metadata catalog proposal; this PR
intentionally exposes only the authenticated run's granted aliases and
values.
**Problem / motivation:** Agents can currently consume secrets only
through process environment injection. This keeps values resident for
the run, does not support on-demand consumers, and cannot provide a
discrete operator-visible activity event for each agent-initiated read.
**Proposed solution:** Treat `company_secret_bindings` as the source of
truth for agent secret grants. Keep `env.KEY` as env delivery and add
`access.ALIAS` for API-only delivery; an env binding also implies read
access because the value is already present in the agent process. Add
run-bound list/fetch endpoints that derive scope from the authenticated
heartbeat run and never accept caller-selected overlays.
**Alternatives considered:** A company-wide agent-readable catalog was
rejected for this value path because it increases reconnaissance and
does not prove a per-secret grant. Reusing the ephemeral
environment-probe resolver was rejected because it lacks binding
enforcement. Approval-gated reads and user-scoped secrets remain
deferred beyond v1.
**Roadmap alignment:** This extends the completed **Secrets Manager with
per-agent access** roadmap capability from launch-time env injection to
explicit run-bound API delivery without duplicating a separate planned
initiative.
## What Changed
- Added `access.*` agent binding validation and a dedicated run-bound
resolver that combines `secrets:read` authorization with binding-context
enforcement.
- Added `GET /api/agents/me/secrets` for minimal granted metadata and
`POST /api/agents/me/secrets/:key/value` for on-demand value fetches
with `Cache-Control: no-store`.
- Preserved the existing denials for low-trust review agents,
task-bridge credentials, and skill-test tokens; standard long-lived
agent API keys cannot call the run-bound routes.
- Added dual audit behavior: value attempts write `secret_access_events`
and `activity_log` (`secret.value.read`), while metadata listing writes
the lighter `secret.access.listed` activity event.
- Kept env compatibility: `env.*` remains injected at launch and also
implies API read for the same bound agent; `access.*` never becomes an
environment variable.
- Added the agent-settings **Secret access** editor plus
delivery-mode/alias surfacing on the Secrets page, with focused UI tests
and tokenized layout styles.
- Updated OpenAPI, shared types, agent-facing skill documentation, and
API reference documentation.
### UI Screenshots
P3 produced and reviewed three screenshots using mock data; images are
intentionally not committed to the repository:
- `secret-access-editor.png` — agent settings grant editor.
- `secret-access-light.png` — Secrets-page delivery surfacing in light
mode.
- `secret-access-dark.png` — Secrets-page delivery surfacing in dark
mode.
The source attachments are retained with the implementation task and
linked in the internal handoff; the public page publisher was
unavailable in the PR-prep runtime.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/secret-delivery.test.ts
ui/src/components/AgentSecretAccessEditor.test.tsx` — 5 files, 122 tests
passed.
- Security follow-up: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` — 2 files, 73 tests passed
after active-run and version-consistency fixes.
- Final-head CI: all feature, typecheck, build, e2e, security, and
review gates pass; `General tests (server (1/3))` remains red after one
rerun because unrelated `heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts` cleanup
deletes `heartbeat_runs` before referenced `activity_log` rows.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — feature-local arbitrary-value violations
fixed; command still reports five unchanged `#9627` literals outside
this PR.
- End-to-end QA passed all eight acceptance criteria: grant/list, fetch,
dual audit, env-implies-read, denial matrix, revocation, UI rendering,
and env-injection regression. Evidence:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9921#issuecomment-5027455492
- Security review returned PASS-with-required-changes; the
implementation uses the required dedicated binding-enforcing resolver,
run-bound JWT restriction, run-derived overlays, minimal metadata, and a
resolver redaction-registration hook. Evidence:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9921#issuecomment-5027455382
## Risks
- A compromised agent can exfiltrate any secret explicitly granted to
it; explicit company-scoped/run-scoped grants, revocation, and audit
reduce but cannot remove that inherent capability risk.
- The resolver invokes a redaction-registration hook before returning
values, but the current route has no persistent cross-request per-run
redaction registry. Paperclip-owned later comments/events therefore
cannot yet guarantee automatic scrubbing of a deliberately copied
fetched value; QA classified this as non-blocking residual hardening.
- Audit-event insertion currently fails open if the security-event
insert itself fails; the operator activity event provides partial
redundancy, but a future hardening change should define fail-closed
behavior for value delivery.
- This PR overlaps `ui/src/pages/Secrets.tsx` with #9918 and may require
a straightforward rebase after that PR moves.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.3-codex`, with reasoning, repository tool use,
terminal execution, Paperclip API access, and GitHub CLI capabilities.
Context-window size is not exposed by the runtime.
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with 1M context and tool use assisted with
the UI implementation commit.
## 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>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other
environment-bound secrets.
> - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not
model values that should differ by human operator.
> - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing
whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value.
> - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped
runtime checks deterministic and auditable.
> - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user
values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime
resolution gates.
> - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user
provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required
user secrets or active definitions are unavailable.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #224
Refs #6057
This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core
secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It
is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime
secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the
responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time.
Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as
#1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full
user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here.
## What Changed
- Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values,
keeping stored values out of access metadata.
- Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to
pick them alongside existing secret refs.
- Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve
against the human responsible for the run.
- Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter
dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are
inactive.
- Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access.
- Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user
attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be
resolved.
- Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures
surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures.
- Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes.
- Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered
incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`,
`0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and
`0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127`
migrations.
- Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR
contains code/docs/tests only.
## Verification
- PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on
`paperclipai/paperclip:master`.
- PASS: `git diff --check`
- PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg
'^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true`
produced no files.
- PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130`
with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`,
`0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`,
`0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and
`0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`.
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests)
- PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final
Greptile cleanup fixes)
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests
after the final rebase CI fix)
- PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery,
project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors,
watchdog, and stale queue paths.
- PASS: GitHub checks are green on
`2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck +
Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e,
Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review.
- PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on
`2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5,
and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated
threads.
## Risks
- Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible
user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs
before adapter dispatch.
- `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without
values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind
explicitly.
- External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically
provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side
access for non-local vaults.
- The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release
validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge.
- The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream
migrations; the branch migrations use guarded
column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older
draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter
with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal
reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime.
## 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>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI
agents for work.
> - Agent runtime state is surfaced in both the server API and the board
UI so operators can tell whether an agent is idle, running, paused, or
in error.
> - When an agent is already in `error`, the existing pause/resume
action slot is not useful because there is no running work to pause.
> - Operators need a direct, audited recovery path that clears the stale
error state only for agents in the same company.
> - This pull request adds a company-scoped clear-error mutation,
exposes the shared API contract, and wires the board action cluster to
show Clear error in the pause/resume slot for errored agents.
> - The benefit is that operators can recover CEO/CTO-style errored
agents without resorting to database edits or unrelated session reset
actions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #4021
Paperclip issue: PAP-10515 — right now the CEO and CTO agents are in
error state, but there is no way to clear the error; they appear
otherwise fine.
## What Changed
- Added shared constants, API path, and agent status type support for a
company-scoped clear-error action.
- Added the server service and route to clear an agent from `error` back
to `idle`, with company access enforcement and activity logging.
- Added OpenAPI/docs coverage for the clear-error endpoint.
- Added backend coverage for service behavior and cross-tenant
authorization.
- Updated the board agent action cluster to show a red-tinted Clear
error button only when `agent.status === "error"`.
- Updated agent properties to show a red active last-error indicator
only while the agent is currently errored.
- Added UI component tests for the error-state action and the non-error
pause/resume behavior.
## Verification
Local:
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agents-service-clear-error.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/AgentActionButtons.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`
PR checks:
- Main Paperclip workflow is green on
`a7378e584d50594e7bd507a1a02985bfaaa5abf8`.
- Greptile is 5/5 with no files requiring special attention and no new
comments on the latest review.
- `commitperclip PR Review` is still red because its security-gate step
canceled after filing a draft advisory; the linked `security-review`
check is neutral and says the draft advisory is not a merge block.
Visual artifact:
- 
## Risks
Low to medium risk. The mutation is intentionally narrow, but reviewers
should check that clearing `lastError`/`lastRunError` and returning to
`idle` is the desired recovery semantics for every adapter state. The
remaining red check is from the external commitperclip security-review
workflow, not from the code/test workflow for this PR.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-family coding model, tool-assisted with local shell,
git, GitHub CLI, and targeted Vitest execution.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [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
- [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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies and needs secrets handling
to work across local development, hosted operators, and governed agent
execution.
> - The affected subsystem is the company-scoped secrets control plane:
database schema, server services/routes, CLI workflows, and the Secrets
settings UI.
> - The gap was that secrets were local-only and operators could not
manage provider vaults or import existing remote references without
exposing plaintext.
> - This branch adds provider vault configuration plus an AWS Secrets
Manager remote-import path while preserving company boundaries, binding
context, and audit trails.
> - I kept the PR to a single branch PR, removed unrelated
lockfile/package drift, rebased the full branch onto the current
`public-gh/master`, and addressed fresh Greptile findings.
> - The benefit is a reviewable implementation of provider-backed
secrets with focused tests covering provider selection, import
conflicts, deleted secret reuse, rotation guards, and AWS signing
behavior.
## What Changed
- Added provider vault support for company secrets, including provider
config storage, default vault handling, health checks, binding usage,
access events, and remote import preview/commit.
- Added an AWS Secrets Manager provider using SigV4 request signing,
bounded request timeouts, namespace guardrails, cached runtime
credential resolution, and external-reference linking without plaintext
reads.
- Added Secrets UI surfaces for vault management and remote import, plus
CLI/API documentation for setup and operations.
- Stabilized routine webhook secret binding paths and SSH
environment-driver fixture bindings discovered during verification.
- Addressed Greptile and CI findings: no lockfile/package drift,
monotonic migration metadata, disabled-vault default races, soft-deleted
secret hiding/recreate behavior, remove behavior with disabled vaults,
soft-deleted external-reference re-import, non-active rotation guards,
managed-secret soft deletion through PATCH, and per-call AWS SDK
credential client churn.
- Rebased this branch onto `public-gh/master` at `0e1a5828` and
force-pushed with lease to keep this as the single PR for the branch.
## Verification
- `git fetch public-gh master`
- `git rebase public-gh/master`
- `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | grep
'^pnpm-lock\.yaml$' || true` confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the PR
diff.
- Confirmed migration ordering: master ends at `0081_optimal_dormammu`;
this PR adds `0082_dry_vision` and
`0083_company_secret_provider_configs`.
- Inspected migrations for repeat safety: new tables/indexes use `IF NOT
EXISTS`; foreign keys are guarded by `DO $$ ... IF NOT EXISTS`; column
additions use `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS`.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits.
- `pnpm test:run` ran the full stable Vitest path before the Greptile
follow-up commits; it completed with 3 timing-related failures under
parallel load: `codex-local-execute.test.ts`,
`cursor-local-execute.test.ts`, and `environment-service.test.ts`.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts
src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts
src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts` passed on targeted rerun
(`24/24`).
- `pnpm build` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. Vite
reported existing chunk-size/dynamic-import warnings.
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`26/26`).
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec vitest run src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts
src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`39/39`).
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck` passed.
- Captured Storybook screenshots from `ui/storybook-static` for visual
review.
- Latest PR checks on `5ca3a5cf`: `policy`, serialized server suites
1/4-4/4, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review`
pass; aggregate `verify` is still registering the completed child
checks.
- Greptile review loop continued through the latest requested pass; all
Greptile review threads are resolved and the latest `Greptile Review`
check on `5ca3a5cf` passed with 0 comments added.
## Screenshots
Before: the provider-vault and remote-import surfaces did not exist on
`master`; these are after-state screenshots from the Storybook fixtures.
## Risks
- Migration risk: this adds new secret provider tables and extends
existing secret rows. The migrations were checked for monotonic ordering
and idempotent guards, but reviewers should still inspect upgrade
behavior carefully.
- Provider risk: AWS support uses direct SigV4 requests. Automated tests
cover signing, request timeouts, vault-config selection, namespace
guardrails, pending-version archival, sanitized provider errors, and
service-level cleanup paths. A real-vault AWS smoke test remains
deployment validation for an operator with AWS credentials rather than
an unverified merge blocker in this local branch.
- UI risk: the Secrets page and import dialog are large new surfaces;
screenshots are included above for reviewer inspection.
- Verification risk: the full local stable test command hit
parallel-load timing failures, although the exact failed files passed
when rerun directly.
- Operational risk: remote import intentionally avoids plaintext reads;
operators must understand that imported external references resolve at
runtime and may fail if AWS permissions change.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with local shell/tool use in the
Paperclip worktree. Exact context-window size was not exposed by the
runtime.
## 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
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - Routines are the scheduled/recurring work surface that keeps a
company operating without manual kicks.
> - Operators need routine edits to be auditable and recoverable,
especially when routines control assignments, prompts, triggers, and
webhook secrets.
> - Documents already have revision-style safety, but routines did not
have equivalent history or restore semantics.
> - This pull request adds append-only routine revisions across the
database, shared contracts, server routes, and board UI.
> - The benefit is safer routine iteration: users can inspect history,
compare changes, restore older definitions, and avoid overwriting newer
edits.
## What Changed
- Added `routine_revisions` storage, latest revision pointers on
routines, shared types, validators, and API docs for routine revision
history.
- Added server service/route support for listing routine revisions,
conflict-aware routine saves, and append-only restore operations.
- Added a History tab on routine detail with revision preview,
structured change summaries, description line diffs, dirty-edit
blocking, restore confirmation, and restored webhook secret surfacing.
- Extracted the line diff helper from `DocumentDiffModal` into
`ui/src/lib/line-diff.ts` for reuse.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and renumbered the
routine revision migration to `0077_unusual_karnak` after upstream
`0076_useful_elektra`.
- Made the `0077` routine revision migration idempotent so installs that
already applied the branch-local `0076_unusual_karnak` can safely
advance.
- Updated the plugin SDK test harness routine fixture with the new
revision fields required by the shared `Routine` contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared
packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/lib/line-diff.test.ts
ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx`
passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` passed after
updating the SDK test harness fixture.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` passed; this refreshed
local generated SDK output needed by plugin example typechecks.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
## Risks
- Medium migration risk: this adds routine revision storage and
backfills existing routines. The migration is ordered after upstream
`0076` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards to tolerate
earlier branch-local migration application.
- Restore behavior intentionally appends a new revision instead of
mutating history; callers expecting an in-place rollback need to follow
the new latest revision pointer.
- Restoring webhook triggers recreates webhook secret material, so users
must copy newly surfaced secrets after restore.
- Conflict-aware saves now reject stale routine edits when the client
sends an older `baseRevisionId`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, with shell/tool use in a local
git worktree. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this runtime.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Screenshots: not attached in this draft PR; the new UI flow is covered
by component tests listed above.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals,
and the board UI.
> - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not
hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals.
> - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native
surface for proposed tasks and questions.
> - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations,
richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers.
> - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become
explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue
workflow.
## What Changed
- Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks,
structured questions, and request confirmations.
- Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question
answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows.
- Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from
agents/plugins.
- Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill
docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for
issue-scoped decisions.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch
migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD
COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79
tests passed
- `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration
numbering check
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across
db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces.
- Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master
migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add
idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering.
- UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR
does not include browser screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and
context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local
shell/code execution were enabled.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle
semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep
regressions visible
> - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime
correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area
> - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused
issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch
overlapping issue APIs
> - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat,
telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness
work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit
comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting
## What Changed
- Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review
stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded
execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and
blocked-to-todo wake resumption
- Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads,
compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and
capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces
- Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on
task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material
- Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster
route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation
from local state, and repo verification follow-ups
- Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small
follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were
dropped during branch reconstruction
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted
on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported
init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they
are noted as environment-limited
## Risks
- Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and
reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow
rather than isolated UI polish
- Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should
pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure
modes and not just reshaping harness behavior
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## 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)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
**#1 — Missing `description` field in fields table**
The create body example included `description` and the schema confirms
`description: z.string().optional().nullable()`, but the reference table
omitted it. Added as an optional field.
**#2 — Concurrency policy descriptions were inaccurate**
Original docs described both `coalesce_if_active` and `skip_if_active` as
variants of "skip", which was wrong. Source-verified against
`server/src/services/routines.ts` (dispatchRoutineRun, line 568):
const status = concurrencyPolicy === "skip_if_active" ? "skipped" : "coalesced";
Both policies write identical DB state (same linkedIssueId and
coalescedIntoRunId); the only difference is the run status value.
Descriptions now reflect this: both finalise the incoming run immediately
and link it to the active run — no new issue is created in either case.
Note: the reviewer's suggestion that `coalesce_if_active` "extends or
notifies" the active run was also not supported by the code; corrected
accordingly.
**#3 — `triggerId` undocumented in Manual Run**
`runRoutineSchema` accepts `triggerId` and the service genuinely uses it
(routines.ts:1029–1034): fetches the trigger, enforces that it belongs to
the routine (403) and is enabled (409), then passes it to dispatchRoutineRun
which records the run against the trigger and updates its `lastFiredAt`.
Added `triggerId` to the example body and documented all three behaviours.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Routines are recurring tasks that fire on a schedule, webhook, or API
call and create a heartbeat run for the assigned agent. Document the
full CRUD surface including:
- List / get routines
- Create with concurrency and catch-up policy options
- Add schedule, webhook, and api triggers
- Update / delete triggers, rotate webhook secrets
- Manual run and public trigger fire
- List run history
- Agent access rules (agents can only manage own routines)
- Routine lifecycle (active → paused → archived)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Fix goals-and-projects.md: `completed` is not a valid status — correct to
`achieved` and document all valid values (planned/active/achieved/cancelled)
- Fix issues.md: document that `expectedStatuses: ["in_progress"]` can be used
to re-claim a stale lock after a crashed run; clarify that `runId` in the
request body is not accepted (run ID comes from X-Paperclip-Run-Id header only)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Introduced SVG sanitization using `dompurify` to prevent malicious content.
- Updated tests to validate SVG sanitization with various scenarios.
- Enhanced response headers for assets, adding CSP and nosniff for SVGs.
- Adjusted UI to better clarify supported file types for logo uploads.
- Updated dependencies to include `jsdom` and `dompurify`.
- Restored docs/ directory that was accidentally deleted by `git add -A`
in the v0.2.3 release script
- Replaced generic "P" favicon with actual paperclip icon using brand
primary color (#2563EB)
- Added light/dark logo SVGs for Mintlify navbar (paperclip icon + wordmark)
- Updated docs.json with logo configuration for dark/light mode
- Fixed release.sh to stage only release-related files instead of `git add -A`
to prevent sweeping unrelated changes into release commits
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add granular workspace management — clear local folder or repo URL
independently instead of deleting the whole workspace. Fix project
create route typing. Document inline workspace creation in API docs
and skill references.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dotta
Nicky Leach
Sam
Devin Foley
Aron Prins
Dotta
JonCSykes
Konan69
Forgotten
