## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Apps give those agents governed access to external tools.
> - Remote MCP setup needs secure endpoint validation and durable
credentials.
> - PostHog needs both browser sign-in and personal API key setup paths.
> - This pull request adds the shared remote MCP foundation and the
PostHog definition.
> - The benefit is a secure and reusable base for later app connection
work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 1 of 11. It replaces the first reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add guarded remote MCP setup and credential handling.
- Add PostHog OAuth and API key connection methods.
- Add focused server, shared contract, and UI coverage.
- Keep the migration replay-safe and idempotent.
- Give the late-close security regression the same 10-second CI headroom
as the adjacent real-timer handshake test.
- Synchronize fake-timer handshake tests at the exact ensure-session
boundary so real filesystem setup cannot race the fake deadline.
- Drive PTY overflow coverage only after listener registration so
scheduling cannot reorder the test fixture.
## Verification
- pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-worker-manager.test.ts (220 passed; affected
cases also passed five focused stress repetitions)
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts -t "never leaks a
sandbox-provided value from a late close rejection into logs or the
result"` (1 passed)
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts -t "never
promotes a late ensureSession resolution|closes a late-resolving real
handle exactly once"` (2 passed)
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- Remote endpoint validation can reject configurations that previously
passed without checks.
- OAuth configuration errors can block setup until the operator corrects
the provider settings.
- The migration uses guarded statements so repeated execution is safe.
- The test-only synchronization changes do not affect runtime behavior;
they remove filesystem/fake-clock and listener-registration races
observed under parallel CI load.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code 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 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
> - Integrations are governed through the Apps v2 "connections"
substrate documented in `doc/connections/`
> - Contributors adding connectors had no written boundary between
*signing a user in* (identity) and *connecting an external resource* (a
connection), so app-store work could drift into merging the two
> - Unwritten, that boundary risks a design where a sign-in provider's
token gets reused as a resource token, or the identity service grows a
connections hub — exactly the failure the separation exists to prevent
> - This pull request adds an "Identity vs. connections" section to the
public connections docs that names the three planes, states the standing
rule verbatim, and aligns naming across surfaces
> - The benefit is that connector implementers inherit the
identity/connection boundary from accessible repository documentation
instead of re-deriving it
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Docs-only change. No public GitHub issue.
**Problem:** The `doc/connections/` docs describe how to add a connector
(the First-30 matrix and connector playbook) but never state where
identity ends and connections begin. Without an accessible statement of
that boundary, connector work can accidentally blur sign-in tokens and
resource tokens.
**Change:** Adds a public reference section fixing the boundary and
makes it self-contained for contributors without access to private
identity-service implementation documentation.
## What Changed
- `doc/connections/README.md`: adds an **Identity vs. connections**
section with the P1/P2/P3 model, D7 standing rule, rationale, naming
alignment, and canonical-doc cross-reference.
- `doc/connections/FIRST-30-MATRIX.md`: notes that every listed provider
is a plane-P2 connection and links the new section.
- `doc/connections/CONNECTOR-PLAYBOOK.md`: points connector authors to
the boundary and standing rule before implementation.
- Removes inaccessible private-repository documentation links so every
reference in the new public guidance is usable by contributors.
## Verification
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- Verified Markdown table column consistency across the three changed
files.
- Verified no private `paperclip-id` URLs or new internal Paperclip
issue references remain in the diff.
- Current-head CI is fully green, including typecheck, build,
server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, and both e2e shards.
- Greptile reviewed commit `d964abab50b39a79fef394c0b1855dd1f2e4b92b` at
5/5 with no unresolved findings; its connections-doc validation returned
`RESULT: PASS`.
## Risks
Low risk — documentation only. No code, schema, migration, or runtime
behavior changes.
> 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
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), 1M context, extended
thinking with tool use, authored the initial documentation change.
- OpenAI Codex CLI (runtime model identifier not exposed to this
session), agentic reasoning with shell and GitHub tooling, performed PR
preparation, rebase, review-loop diagnosis, and the public-link
correction.
## 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
> - 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>
Dotta