## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 8/8 and focuses on end-to-end coverage,
operator docs, evals, and release notes
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: The complete stack needs discoverable browser scenarios,
operator guidance, threat modeling, eval coverage, and a parity proof
before merge.
- Proposed solution: Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites,
docs/evals/release notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver
script registration.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/07-ui-apps-activation`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: QA for flag audit and e2e/browser acceptance;
Greptile on every PR.
## What Changed
- Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites, docs/evals/release
notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver script registration.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `node --check scripts/e2e-mcp-user-stories.mjs`
- `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
--list` — 43 tests discovered
- `git diff pap10341-split/08-e2e-docs
6b40e3876d9297105d4ec306e47e46d351c86172` — empty (0 bytes)
## Risks
- Browser suites depend on runtime services and environment setup; this
PR validates discovery locally while QA owns full flag-on/flag-off
execution.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge.
> 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [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
- [ ] 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
## Stack Coordination
- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Fresh self-hosted deployments need an operator path before any
invite exists.
> - Umbrel installs are private LAN deployments, so a one-time browser
claim is appropriate only when the deployment is private and unclaimed.
> - Public deployments and installs with active invites must keep the
existing invite-only model so admin creation is not exposed broadly.
> - GitHub PR #2927 established the useful direction, but it needed to
be adapted onto current `master` rather than merged as-is.
> - This pull request adds that adapted private-only claim flow across
server, UI, docs, and regression coverage.
> - The benefit is that a fresh private Umbrel-style install can be
claimed from the browser without weakening public deployment access.
## What Changed
- Added a first-admin claim service and access route support for
one-time admin claim eligibility on private unclaimed deployments.
- Updated the bootstrap/access UI so eligible private installs show a
setup claim path, while public and invited deployments keep invite-first
behavior.
- Added a bootstrap-pending setup UX lab covering claim, invite, public,
and signed-in access states.
- Updated deployment and local development docs for authenticated
private/public behavior and the Umbrel-style claim path.
- Added server and UI regression tests for private claim, public
no-claim, active invite fallback, existing board/no-access flows, and
health exposure reporting.
- Stabilized PR handoff verification by serializing the aggregate server
Vitest workspace run, forcing `NODE_ENV=test`, and relaxing the
heartbeat batching test around legitimate recovery follow-up runs.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm vitest --run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest --run
server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts`
- `pnpm test:run`
- QA validation: PAP-10115 passed browser validation with screenshots
for private fresh install claim, active invite versus claim conflict,
public invite-only/claim-absent behavior, existing invite fallback, and
normal board/no-access flows.
- GitHub closeout: issue #2579 and PR #2927 were updated with the
accepted direction: adapt the implementation, do not direct-merge #2927
as-is.
## Risks
- The claim endpoint must remain private-only and one-time; a regression
here could expose admin creation on public deployments.
- Existing invite behavior must remain intact for public deployments and
installs that already have an active invite.
- The stable Vitest harness now serializes the aggregate server
workspace group; this is slower, but it avoids DB-backed suite
collisions under root workspace mode.
> 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`.
>
> ROADMAP.md checked: this is a scoped deployment bootstrap/access fix
and does not duplicate a listed roadmap project.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` for product
engineering, implementation, and verification, with tool-enabled local
code execution. Paperclip QA browser validation was performed in
PAP-10115 by the assigned QA agent; exact adapter model metadata for
that QA run is not exposed in this PR context.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
- Add wget, ripgrep, python3, and GitHub CLI (gh) to base image
- Add OPENCODE_ALLOW_ALL_MODELS=true to production ENV
- Move compose files, onboard-smoke Dockerfile to docker/
- Move entrypoint script to scripts/docker-entrypoint.sh
- Add Podman Quadlet unit files (pod, app, db containers)
- Add docker/README.md with build, compose, and quadlet docs
- Add scripts/docker-build-test.sh for local build validation
- Update all doc references for new file locations
- Keep main Dockerfile at project root (no .dockerignore changes needed)
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Adds a dedicated Docker environment for reviewing untrusted pull requests
with codex/claude, keeping CLI auth state in volumes and using a separate
scratch workspace for PR checkouts.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Rewrites Dockerfile to use bookworm-slim base, installs Claude and Codex
CLIs, adds docker-compose.quickstart.yml for one-command setup, and adds
DOCKER.md with usage instructions.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dotta
Cody (Radius Red)
dotta
Dotta
zvictor
Forgotten