## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for agents that perform work.
> - Paperclip Runner connects durable provider sessions to individual
task runs through PRP.
> - Provider continuity and per-run authority are different lifetimes.
> - The existing implementation mixed those lifetimes and lost event
metadata between provider frames, runnerd, persistence, API
sanitization, and the task thread.
> - That caused failed continuation, missing progress and Plans,
duplicate replies, hidden failures, and unsafe recovery.
> - This repair gives every heartbeat fresh authority, preserves
qualified provider-session continuity, and restores one lossless
presentation path without changing direct adapters.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A second native heartbeat could reuse tickets, leases, command receipts,
sequence state, and run identity from the first heartbeat. Provider
phase and item identity could be lost before the UI read them. Redaction
could corrupt protocol discriminators while still missing malformed
credential tails. The task thread could fold progress into the final
response, hide failures, or show more than one final answer. Native
Codex also exposed approval modes that do not yet have a durable
approval bridge.
**Expected behavior**
Each heartbeat uses a new PRP authority epoch. Codex and OpenCode
preserve exact qualified provider sessions; ACPX emits an explicit
continuity event when its qualified process-replacement policy is used.
Every accepted provider event is presented, classified as internal, or
surfaced as unsupported. The task page shows chronological progress,
reasoning summaries, activity, Plans, interactions, terminal failures,
and exactly one final reply. Direct adapters retain their existing path.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable the unified experimental Paperclip Runner setting.
2. Create a local native Codex, OpenCode, ACPX Claude, or ACPX Codex
agent.
3. Run response, Plan, structured-question/resume, restart,
cancellation, and failure scenarios.
4. Reload the task while active, waiting, failed, and settled.
5. On the old implementation, observe stale run authority, missing
classifications, incomplete output, or duplicated/folded replies.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The repair is based directly on `master` at
`87d05e194b643810d16d20612115acd01d735d43`.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with the embedded database.
Related work: Refs #12616, #12646, #12666, #12685, and #12700.
## What Changed
- Rotates PRP control-plane, outbox, ticket, lease, command, receipt,
and sequence authority for each heartbeat while carrying forward only a
validated provider-session identity.
- Reads `control-plane-state.json`, validates both durable schemas and
lifecycle values, resumes coherent current runs, archives qualified
settled authority, and quarantines malformed or mismatched scoped state
without moving ambiguous live legacy state.
- Preserves Codex provider phase and stable item identities so
commentary remains progress and only `final_answer` becomes final.
- Adds raw OpenCode HTTP/SSE boundary coverage and canonical reasoning
lifecycle mapping.
- Makes ACPX normalization lossless for visible reasoning, tool
lifecycle metadata, stable bounded identities, Plan revisions,
structured requests, failures, and qualified process replacement. Only
the compatible terminal assistant message is promoted as final.
- Applies schema-aware redaction before generic JWT-shaped detection and
scans every diagnostic string leaf. Malformed raw/escaped quoted
credential tails are redacted in both server and durable Rust state.
- Restores snapshot-style chronological task presentation, expandable
tool activity, inline Plan cards, visible waiting/resume/cancel/failure
states, and exactly one final answer.
- Makes `never` the only qualified native Codex permission mode and
rejects unsupported persisted native modes with remediation. OpenCode
and ACPX policies remain intact.
- Keeps the unified experimental Runner setting as the only enablement
flag. Onboarding and direct Codex, Claude, and OpenCode stay on their
legacy execution/finalization paths.
- Adds cross-language goldens, authority/recovery/fault coverage, exact
response/count assertions, and native plus legacy acceptance scenarios.
## Verification
- Pull-request GitHub Actions run Rust formatting/tests, TypeScript
checks, server/UI tests, builds, protocol drift checks, browser E2E, and
security scans.
- A separate workflow-only validation ref is pinned directly on this PR
head and runs the 35-cell paid local matrix: three core scenarios plus
structured-question resume and restart/resume for native Codex, native
OpenCode, ACPX Claude, ACPX Codex, and direct Codex/Claude/OpenCode.
Run: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/33682434315
- Acceptance requires exact single visible replies, monotonic sequences,
matching envelope discriminators, one semantic terminal, one run
terminal, no unresolved interaction, no duplicate mutation, no secret
leakage, provider continuity, and zero native rows for direct adapters.
- Per maintainer direction, tests are running in GitHub Actions rather
than on the slower local host. Only formatters and static diff checks
were run locally.
## Risks
- Recovery from old or partial filesystem state is sensitive. The repair
fails closed, preserves active or unverifiable authority, and
quarantines only state whose scoped ownership is safe to move.
- Provider event formats can change. Closed validators and boundary
goldens turn new or malformed events into visible diagnostics instead of
silent drops.
- Shared task presentation could affect direct adapters. Runtime-fact
gating plus the direct-adapter matrix protect the existing path.
- Managed and remote providers are not qualified here. Shared code
continues to compile and fail safely, but live qualification is
deferred.
> 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 deployed snapshot and
context-window size are not exposed to this task. It used agentic
reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, Git, parallel subagents,
and GitHub Actions.
## 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
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass (intentionally deferred to
GitHub Actions)
- [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 risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] The paid local-provider matrix is 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agents that use different model providers and
adapters.
> - Paperclip must keep agent execution rules clear and predictable.
> - The cheap-model profile added a second execution mode across
adapters, task recovery, APIs, and the UI.
> - That mode increased configuration and recovery complexity.
> - This pull request removes the cheap-model profile as a product
feature.
> - The benefit is one model-selection path for normal work and recovery
work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This change simplifies model selection across agent configuration, task
execution, recovery, and adapter capabilities.
**Current behavior**
Paperclip exposes cheap-model profiles in adapter metadata, agent
runtime configuration, task overrides, recovery rules, APIs, and the
board UI. Recovery work can select a different model profile from the
agent's configured model.
**Proposed behavior**
Paperclip uses the agent's configured model for normal work and recovery
work. Status-only recovery stays limited to coordination work. The API
rejects legacy model-profile configuration. A migration removes stored
model-profile values from existing agent, issue, and historical revision
records.
**Reason and benefit**
One model path reduces configuration, API, UI, and recovery complexity.
It also prevents status recovery from becoming a separate product-level
model-routing feature.
**Breaking changes**
This change removes model-profile fields and adapter capability
metadata. Existing stored model-profile values are removed by an
idempotent migration. The validators reject new legacy profile values
with clear errors.
## What Changed
- Removed model-profile types, adapter capabilities, API fields, and
model selection logic.
- Removed cheap-model controls from agent and task UI surfaces.
- Kept status-only recovery limited to coordination context while normal
continuations use the configured agent model.
- Added an idempotent migration that removes stored model-profile values
from agents, issues, and configuration revisions without changing issue
update timestamps.
- Updated tests and product documentation for the single-model behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passes.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm build` passes.
- `pnpm test:run` completed with 5,607 passing tests and 8
environment-sensitive failures in unrelated fixed-port and
database-deadlock suites. The same failures repeated in an isolated
rerun. CI is the final clean-room result.
## Risks
- This is an intentional breaking change for clients that send
model-profile fields.
- The migration changes legacy agent, issue, and configuration-revision
JSON. It is idempotent and preserves unrelated fields and issue update
timestamps.
- The change is cross-cutting because the removed feature existed in
adapters, shared contracts, the server, plugins, and the UI.
> 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 with `gpt-5`. Reasoning and tool use were enabled. The
runtime did not expose the context-window size.
## 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)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [ ] 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.
> - Administrators need bounded controls for experimental native
execution.
> - The lower stack adds remote Codex execution and the task workspace.
> - Operators need to configure Codex safely and inspect provider
traces.
> - Unsupported providers must not appear as runnable choices.
> - This pull request adds Codex-only administration and observability.
> - The benefit is a default-off operational surface for production
diagnosis.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12640.
Refs #12616.
Refs #12352.
**Subsystem affected**
Agent configuration, instance experimental settings, run ledger,
provider trace inspector, and administrator actions.
**Problem or motivation**
The native runner lacks one safe operator surface for Codex permissions,
lifecycle, raw trace capture, and run inspection. The integration branch
also contains provider choices that the production backend cannot
execute yet.
**Proposed solution**
Expose only the qualified Codex controls. Keep Paperclip Developer Mode
and runner preview ingress off by default. Gate raw trace actions by
administrator access and existing trace authorization.
**Alternatives considered**
Exposing unfinished providers would create configurations that fail at
runtime. Always-on tracing would increase sensitive data and storage
risk.
**Roadmap alignment**
This work supports governed Cloud and Sandbox agents and production
diagnostics.
## Stack
- Base PR: #12640.
- Lower PRs: #12639 and #12638.
- This PR contains only its 54-file administration and observability
delta.
- This is the final feature PR in the Codex production stack.
## What Changed
- Added Codex-only Paperclip Runner permission and lifecycle controls.
- Added bounded warm idle configuration.
- Kept the provider field fixed to Codex.
- Added administrator-only one-run raw trace requests.
- Added a persistent future-run raw trace toggle.
- Added trace status, metadata, ledger, and canonical runner inspection.
- Added JSON-RPC request-origin grouping and finalization lineage.
- Restored the stateful PRP transcript parser and focused projection
tests required by trace inspection.
- Added default-off Paperclip Developer Mode.
- Added Honeycomb run links for authorized developer mode.
- Disabled the legacy operational skill for `paperclip_runner`.
- Did not expose OpenCode, ACPX, Pi, Claude Managed, or AWS runner
choices.
- Did not change migrations, workflows, dependencies, or
`pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Verification
- GitHub Actions will run UI tests, server tests, repository typecheck,
build, browser tests, security, and policy gates.
- Tests cover Codex configuration defaults and bounds, administrator
trace actions, persistent settings, ledger inspection, trace lineage,
and Honeycomb links.
- Existing server trace authorization and retention tests remain the
backend authority.
- Local tests were not run. The requested verification policy uses
GitHub Actions for this series.
- `git diff --check runner/task-workspace-experience...HEAD` passes.
- The delta contains 54 files.
## Risks
- Raw provider traces can contain sensitive provider data.
- Existing server authorization controls access, reveal, download,
retention, and deletion.
- The UI gates trace actions by administrator access and developer mode.
- All new instance settings remain off by default.
- Fresh Paperclip Runner configuration remains Codex-only.
- Direct adapters and legacy task behavior do not change in 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 with GPT-5.6. The work used high-reasoning agent mode,
repository tools, GitHub tools, and parallel code-audit agents.
## 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 or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [ ] 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 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Sandbox agents need a safe login path for each supported adapter
> - Codex device login and Claude setup-token login used separate
session stores and route logic
> - Separate stores made session lookup, expiry, and login capability
checks harder to keep consistent
> - This pull request unifies both flows on one session table and one
capability contract
> - The benefit is one company-scoped login model with public session
identifiers and shared lifecycle rules
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above)
**Problem or motivation**
Codex and Claude sandbox login used separate session stores and
different route paths. This split increased the risk of inconsistent
company scoping, session lookup, and cleanup.
**Proposed solution**
Use `adapter_auth_sessions` for both login flows. Use public session
identifiers for API access. Select login behavior from projected adapter
capability data. Share the route spine, lease arguments, runner
lifecycle, and reaper rules.
**Alternatives considered**
Keep two session tables and add matching fixes to both routes. This
keeps duplicate logic and does not provide one capability contract, so
this pull request uses shared infrastructure.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change supports the shipped Cloud / Sandbox agents milestone in
`ROADMAP.md`.
## What Changed
- Unify Codex device login and Claude setup-token login on
`adapter_auth_sessions`.
- Return and look up sessions with company-scoped public session
identifiers.
- Enforce one active session for each company, owner, and adapter.
- Share the login route spine, sandbox lease arguments, runner
lifecycle, and missing-auth check.
- Add a standalone setup-token reaper with adapter-specific row
selection.
- Add optional login capability projection for adapters and drive route
and UI selection from that data.
- Rename the provider flag to `supportsLoginPty` and validate its
deprecated alias.
- Remove the old Claude setup-token session table and add the required
migrations.
## Verification
- Server typecheck passed with `tsc`.
- Database typecheck passed.
- UI typecheck passed with `tsc -b`.
- Codex login service and route suites passed.
- Setup-token session, route, and reaper suites passed.
- Adapter session schema, plugin validator, capability projection, UI
render, and Daytona suites passed.
- GitHub Actions must confirm the complete CI gate after pull request
creation.
## Risks
- The migrations remove short-lived in-flight login rows during
deployment. A login that spans the migration can continue until its
provider lease expires.
- The Codex credential store remains company-scoped. A cross-owner
credential race remains a documented, board-accepted risk.
- API clients that use internal session row identifiers no longer work.
The API accepts only public session identifiers.
## Model Used
Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model ID not exposed in this handoff, large
context window, reasoning, and repository tool use. The implementing
engineer produced the code with AI 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 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
> - The Claude local adapter supports subscription login through a
sandbox
> - The new-agent page must show login before the user creates an agent
> - Test results must not expose raw sandbox diagnostics or secret
values
> - This pull request adds the login UI to both Test lanes and closes
the diagnostic boundary
> - The branch also adds durable cleanup recovery for failed sandbox
teardown
> - Reusable sandboxes must retain both their recorded teardown
configuration and a valid lifecycle path until destruction succeeds
> - The benefit is a usable login flow with fixed public checks,
redacted server logs, and recoverable sandbox cleanup
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related public work:
[#9488](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9488) adds
first-class recognition for `CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN` in headless and
remote runs. Related public issue:
[#2681](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/2681) requests
Claude Code subscription support. This pull request adds the login
transport and new-agent UI flow that those changes do not provide.
**Subsystem affected:** Claude local adapter, server login probes,
sandbox provider setup, cleanup recovery, and the new-agent UI.
**Problem or motivation:** The Test lanes did not show the sandbox login
panel in all supported cases. Test results also exposed raw probe
diagnostics, and JSON escapes could end secret redaction early.
**Proposed solution:** Surface the login capability through the bundled
provider manifest. Prepare the same probe runtime in the ACP lane. Send
diagnostics only to redacted server logs. Keep Test checks on fixed
public messages. Normalize login URL hints to allowlisted HTTPS Claude
and Anthropic hosts. Consume JSON escapes during redaction. Preserve
failed sandbox cleanup state across retries and restarts, and prevent
deletion from severing the lifecycle context of a live reusable sandbox.
**Alternatives considered:** Keep raw diagnostics in Test checks or
trust login URL text from the sandbox. Both choices increase information
exposure. Keep separate probe behavior in the ACP lane. That choice
would leave the two Test lanes inconsistent.
## What Changed
- Surface the sandbox login panel on both Test lanes.
- Reconcile the bundled Daytona plugin manifest so
`supportsSetupTokenLogin` reaches the UI capability gate.
- Prepare the ACP Test lane with the same probe runtime as the CLI Test
lane.
- Add the `claude_acp_login_probe_unavailable` warning when the ACP
probe cannot run.
- Send raw sandbox diagnostics only to redacted server logs.
- Keep Test checks on fixed public messages in the ACP, managed-config,
and CLI paths.
- Normalize login URL hints to allowlisted HTTPS Claude and Anthropic
hosts.
- Redact JSON and escaped-JSON secret values, including escaped quotes
and backslashes.
- Preserve orphan cleanup records across provider failures, restarts,
and unavailable plugins.
- Atomically block environment deletion while a live reusable sandbox
lease still depends on it.
- Verify pending cleanup destroys plugin sandboxes with the provider
configuration recorded on the lease, even after the current environment
configuration changes.
## Verification
- Head under review: `506b7fa2d83c36bfa5fd722ee9d95b0c7431c241`.
- Focused environment route/service/runtime coverage passes: 196 tests
across 3 files.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm build` passes.
- The full Vitest run completed with 4,754 passing and 28 failing tests.
All 23 source-test failures reproduce unchanged on parent head
`58cfe61a33191ce03d965d65085d26064b4888ba`; the other 5 are duplicate
executions from stale `server/dist` output. The failures are unrelated
macOS path/listener and scheduler-fixture failures, so there is no new
bad commit for bisect to localize.
- All required CI checks pass for the current head, including build,
typecheck/release registry, all server and workspace shards, serialized
server suites, canary, and e2e.
- A fresh Greptile review for `506b7fa2d83c36bfa5fd722ee9d95b0c7431c241`
reports 5/5, “safe to merge,” with no blocking failure remaining.
## Risks
- A probe or redaction change could hide useful server diagnostics.
- An allowlist change could reject a valid Claude login URL.
- Cleanup recovery changes could affect provider teardown ordering.
- An environment with a live reusable sandbox can no longer be deleted
until the owning issue or execution workspace completes teardown.
- The implementation keeps public Test messages fixed and sends detail
to redacted server logs.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex — exact model ID: GPT-5; tool use and code
execution enabled; extended reasoning enabled. The implementation author
used AI-assisted development.
## 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 documented the result
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation or confirmed no separate
documentation change is needed
- [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 people use to manage AI-agent
companies.
> - Agents can encounter credentials during work.
> - Directly creating live secrets or bindings would bypass human
governance.
> - Proposal records must remain inert and separate from live secret
resolution until an authorized human approves them.
> - Approval must reuse the existing secret-create and protected
agent-config write paths.
> - This pull request adds the propose, review, approve, and reject
lifecycle.
> - The benefit is that agents can safely hand credentials into
Paperclip without exposing plaintext or gaining authority to activate
them.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Follow-on to #9921, which established run-bound agent secret access.
**Problem / motivation:**
Agents can receive credentials during work. There is no governed way for
them to propose a credential or binding without exposing plaintext in
work artifacts or immediately creating live access.
**Proposed solution:**
Store agent-authored proposals outside live secret tables. Encrypt each
proposed value and register exact-value redaction when Paperclip
receives it. Require an authorized human to approve or reject each
proposal. Approval executes through the normal write paths as the human
approver. Binding proposals can target only the proposer or its downward
reporting chain under the restrictive V1 policy.
**Alternatives considered:**
We rejected live secrets with a `proposed` status. That design would put
untrusted rows in resolver, list, and sync paths. It would also allow
uniqueness squatting. We rejected direct agent binding writes because a
binding is an agent-config write and must keep the existing human
permission gate.
**Roadmap alignment:**
This change extends the run-bound agent secret-access foundation in
#9921 with a governed proposal workflow.
## Security Verdict
Q0 SecEng verdict: **PASS-with-required-changes**. The review accepted
the separate proposal-table design and required the implementation to:
- fail closed unless both encryption and exact-value run redaction
registration succeed;
- scrub ciphertext idempotently on reject, withdraw, and expiry, with
audit-visible state;
- treat agent justification as hostile input and foreground action,
target, provenance, and approver permissions;
- snapshot and re-check the target agent plus reports-to chain at
approval to prevent org-chart laundering;
- make cascade approval atomic and fail closed if either secret creation
or binding authorization fails;
- deny low-trust, `skill_test`, `task_bridge`, and non-run-bound sources
consistently; and
- execute approval through the normal human secret/config write paths,
including protected-change gates.
Those requirements are implemented and covered by focused service,
route, and UI tests. Residual V1 risk remains the accepted 14-day
encrypted retention window. Proposal-time redaction also cannot clean a
value that leaked before the propose call.
## What Changed
- Added `company_secret_proposals`, migration `0207`, shared proposal
contracts, and a state-machine service for create, approve, reject,
withdraw, cascade, expiry, and ciphertext scrubbing.
- Added run-bound agent proposal routes and board review routes. The
routes derive provenance from authentication and enforce source
restrictions, company isolation, chain-of-command checks,
approval-as-approver, wake-on-resolution, and dual audit trails.
- Added durable per-run exact-value redaction registration so proposal
values remain redacted on later read surfaces.
- Added the Secrets **Proposals** tab and agent configuration **Proposed
access** rows. The UI shows fingerprint and length only. It also frames
agent justification as untrusted input, runs permission preflight,
supports approve and reject actions, and confirms cascades.
- Updated OpenAPI, agent skill guidance, API reference documentation,
and focused server and UI regression coverage.
- Rebased the branch onto current `master` and renumbered the proposal
migration after `0206`.
## QA Acceptance Results
Q5 QA verdict: **PASS — 9/9 acceptance criteria met**, with one Minor
non-blocking follow-up.
- **AC1:** proposed values never echo, never appear in live
lists/resolvers, and expose only fingerprint + length to board
reviewers.
- **AC2:** restrictive `self_and_reports` matrix passes: self/downward
allowed; upward/lateral denied.
- **AC3:** secret approval uses the normal create path, honors rename
overrides, records proposer/approver provenance, and scrubs ciphertext.
- **AC4:** approved bindings materialize and resolve through the target
agent's runtime list/fetch routes.
- **AC5:** pending-secret bindings require cascade; cascade succeeds
atomically and permission failures leave nothing applied.
- **AC6:** reject, withdraw, dependent rejection, and expiry paths scrub
ciphertext and preserve reasons/audit state.
- **AC7:** token/source and approver denial matrix passes through live
checks plus focused route tests.
- **AC8:** proposal lifecycle events and reused
`secret.created`/config-write events form the required dual audit trail;
origin-issue notification and wake are queued.
- **AC9:** both review surfaces render and execute correctly; UI
approval materializes the binding.
QA also confirmed zero plaintext occurrences for all exercised proposal
values in server logs. The single finding is that the company-level
`bindingTargetPolicy` toggle is not wired yet. V1 is hardcoded to the
restrictive `self_and_reports` policy. The matrix is correct and the
follow-up is tracked separately, so QA classified it as non-blocking.
## Verification
- Focused server proposal and redaction suite: 83 tests pass.
- Focused proposal review UI suite: 54 tests pass.
- Embedded-Postgres migration reapply test: 1 test passes with the
documented 30-second timeout.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passes, including migration
numbering and safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passes with all gates clean.
- Q5 exercised the complete propose, review, approve, bind, and
runtime-resolve flow over real HTTP, JWT, and database paths. It
verified 9/9 acceptance criteria.
## Risks
- Proposal ciphertext is retained encrypted for up to 14 days while
pending. Terminal-state and expiry scrub paths reduce but do not remove
server-compromise risk during that window.
- The V1 target policy is restrictive but not yet company-configurable.
A separate follow-up owns that change.
- A new migration can require another renumber if another migration
lands before maintainers merge this pull request.
> 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. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent. The exact runtime model ID and
context-window size are not exposed. The agent used reasoning,
repository editing, terminal execution, Paperclip API, and GitHub CLI
capabilities. Q3 UI work also records Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in its
commit trailers.
## 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 or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [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>
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators need first-party agent capabilities for repeatable company
work, not just manually created one-off agents.
> - Built-in agents need to behave like normal company-scoped agents
while preserving approval gates, permissions, budgets, and audit trails.
> - Reflection and coaching work also needs bundled instructions, skill
content, and a routine so the feature can be installed and reset
predictably.
> - The API, database, UI, portability, and tests all need to agree on
the built-in lifecycle from not provisioned through setup, approval,
ready, paused, and reset.
> - This pull request adds built-in agent provisioning and the
Reflection Coach bundle end-to-end.
> - The benefit is a safer first-party path for Paperclip-managed agents
without bypassing the same governance model used for operator-created
agents.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue was found for this exact built-in agent and
Reflection Coach bundle work.
Problem/motivation:
- Paperclip did not have a first-party built-in agent lifecycle for
product-owned agents.
- Bundled agent resources such as default instructions, skills, and
routines needed managed ownership and reset semantics.
- Approval-gated companies needed built-in setup to preserve requested
adapter, budget, manager, and permission state through board approval.
- The board UI needed clear built-in badges, setup affordances,
readiness state, and bundle status without exposing secrets.
Proposed solution:
- Add a company-scoped built-in agent registry,
provisioning/reset/reconcile/status APIs, and Reflection Coach bundled
resources.
- Track bundled managed resources in the database with idempotent
migration behavior.
- Reuse existing agent approval, authorization, budget, and activity-log
paths instead of creating a bypass.
- Add UI setup, badges, gates, bundle panels, and route coverage for
built-in agents.
Duplicate search:
- Searched GitHub PRs for `built-in agents Reflection Coach
repo:paperclipai/paperclip`; only this PR was returned.
- Searched GitHub issues for the same query; no public issues were
returned.
## What Changed
- Added built-in agent definitions, lifecycle state derivation,
provisioning, reset, reconcile, status, and routine-control routes.
- Added the `built_in_managed_resources` migration and schema exports
for bundled instructions, skill, and routine ownership.
- Added the Reflection Coach built-in bundle with default instructions,
skill catalog content, routine template, default permissions, and
managed-resource drift handling.
- Added approval-aware provisioning behavior that preserves requested
adapter config, budgets, manager assignment, and built-in permissions
through hire approval.
- Added authorization and mutation gates for built-in agent and skill
changes, including consented Reflection Coach change paths.
- Added UI surfaces for built-in agent setup, roster/detail badges,
readiness gates, bundle status, routine controls, and route filtering.
- Added company import/export and validator coverage for built-in
managed resources and low-trust/red-team presets.
- Addressed Greptile follow-ups for pending approval reconciliation,
consent-gate error propagation, config-read authorization fallback,
approval-path manager preservation, and non-model adapter provisioning.
## Verification
Local verification:
- `git diff --check public/master..HEAD` passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passed with all gates clean.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/ConfigureBuiltInAgentModal.test.tsx` passed: 1 file, 4
tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/EntityRow.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx ui/src/components/BuiltInAgentGate.test.tsx
ui/src/components/ConfigureBuiltInAgentModal.test.tsx
ui/src/components/BuiltInBundlePanel.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` passed: 7 files, 64 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts
src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts` passed: 3 files, 91 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after the rebase; `pnpm --filter ui
typecheck` passed after the final UI review fix.
Remote verification on latest head
`1c61f693a4ec881d739022b0e75a8ca8bf8c2cd8`:
- Merge state: `CLEAN`.
- Greptile: `5/5`, zero unresolved Greptile threads.
- PR check rollup: all checks successful, neutral, or skipped as
expected.
- Passing gates include Build, Typecheck + Release Registry, all server
shards, all workspace shards, all serialized server suites, e2e, Canary
Dry Run, policy, review, verify, Socket, Superagent, and Snyk.
## Risks
- This adds a new managed-resource table and migration; the migration
uses idempotent create/add/index guards and passed migration safety
checks.
- Built-in agent provisioning touches approval and authorization paths;
tests cover pending approval preservation, stale retry rejection,
consent gates, and config-read fallback behavior.
- Reflection Coach creates managed instructions, skill, and routine
resources; drift/reset behavior is covered by service tests and redacted
API responses.
- Non-model adapter setup now provisions a `needs_setup` built-in row
before command/endpoint fields are complete; this matches the server
lifecycle and is covered by the setup modal regression test.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5. Exact hosted model ID,
context-window size, and reasoning-mode labels are not exposed in this
runtime; tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI/API access, and local
code editing 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.
> - 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 app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent adapters are the boundary between the control plane and the
runtimes that actually do work.
> - Hermes support needs to be available as first-class local and
gateway adapters while still preserving the adapter-manager override
path for external packages.
> - The adapter work touches runtime execution, UI adapter metadata,
onboarding prompts, scoped credentials, release packaging, and smoke
coverage, so the handoff needs concrete verification rather than only
unit tests.
> - This pull request adds built-in Hermes local and Hermes gateway
support, keeps external adapter overrides compatible, and
documents/tests the gateway flow end to end.
> - The benefit is that operators can hire Hermes-backed agents without
a manual plugin install, while self-hosted installs can still
override/shadow the built-ins through Adapter manager packages.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this exact Hermes built-in adapter,
gateway onboarding, and release-source work.
Problem description:
- Hermes local and gateway adapters need a public, reviewable source
path in the monorepo so package artifacts and built-in adapter behavior
match the application source.
- Operators need built-in `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` adapter
choices without losing the ability to install external Hermes packages
as overrides.
- Gateway onboarding needs secure defaults for API server URLs, API
keys, and generated agent setup text.
- Hermes-originated task bridge credentials need narrower API-key scope
configuration.
- Related public PRs found during duplicate search include #3027, #2363,
#7544, #7950, #8095, and #8543.
## What Changed
- Added the unified Hermes adapter package with local and gateway
server/UI/CLI exports, config schemas, transcript parsing, model
detection, and package metadata.
- Registered `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` as built-in adapters
across shared constants, server registries, CLI packaging, and UI
adapter registries.
- Kept the external adapter override path compatible so installed Hermes
packages can shadow built-ins and restore the built-in parser when
disabled.
- Added Hermes gateway onboarding docs, board-operator docs, Docker
smoke assets, and shell smoke harnesses for join/e2e validation.
- Added scoped task-bridge API-key support, authorization checks,
issue-origin handling, and tests for Hermes-created Paperclip tasks.
- Hardened gateway transport and redaction behavior for API keys,
headers, session data, and smoke diagnostics.
- Updated release packaging/bootstrap checks for the Hermes packages
while leaving `pnpm-lock.yaml` out of the PR per repository policy.
## Verification
Targeted local verification recorded before PR handoff:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter exec vitest run
src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` — 14/14 passed.
- `pnpm test:hermes-gateway-smoke` — 6/6 passed.
- Hermes package typecheck/build checks passed.
- Focused server/UI adapter tests passed — 31/31.
- Release helper Node tests passed — 18/18.
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` passed.
Fresh Docker E2E smoke evidence:
- Ran `pnpm smoke:hermes-gateway-e2e` on 2026-06-26 with a fresh state
directory and fresh Docker container against a live Paperclip dev
server.
- Hermes direct execution reached `completed`.
- Hermes stop/cancel path reached `cancelled`.
- Hermes gateway created a Paperclip task, Paperclip ran the Hermes
agent, and the task reached `done` with the expected marker response.
- Temporary board auth keys, token files, smoke state, and Docker
containers were cleaned up after the run.
PR checks on head `b5eae40ce`:
- GitHub Actions passed: `policy`, `review`, `Typecheck + Release
Registry`, all general test shards, all serialized server shards,
`Build`, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, and aggregate `verify`.
- External checks passed: Snyk and Socket Project Report.
- External Socket Pull Request Alerts remained pending after the
first-party CI matrix completed.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this spans adapter registration, package publishing,
gateway execution, onboarding docs, API-key scoping, and UI adapter
metadata.
- Migration risk is low: the scope-config migration adds a nullable
column and does not rewrite existing keys.
- Gateway execution depends on operator-provided Hermes API
configuration; the smoke covers the Docker gateway path but real
deployments may differ by network/auth setup.
- Direct Greptile review on the latest expanded diff is file-count
limited, although the commitperclip review gate passed.
> 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, tool use enabled in a local repository
workspace. Context window size is not exposed in 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
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Commitperclip review gate is green; direct Greptile review is
file-count limited on the latest expanded diff
- [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 people use to create, configure, and
run AI agents for work.
> - This change sits in the server-side agent lifecycle and
secret-binding subsystem, where adapter config `env` entries can
reference company secrets.
> - An incident (while trying to configure a Novita sandbox) showed that
an agent can reach a broken runtime state if `adapterConfig.env`
contains `secret_ref` entries but the matching `company_secret_bindings`
rows are missing.
> - The immediate run-path guard and error-surfacing work made the
failure diagnosable, but they did not fully prevent new broken agents
from being created.
> - The risk came from create and approval flows being responsible for
remembering to sync bindings at each call site, which is easy to miss as
new flows are added.
> - This pull request moves the invariant into `agentService`
create/update/activate paths, keeps the existing hire-flow fix, and adds
regression coverage for create, update, and legacy pending-approval
recovery.
> - The benefit is that agent secret binding integrity is enforced
closer to the data mutation point, so future callers inherit the
protection automatically.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8309
### What happened?
A Paperclip agent could persist `adapterConfig.env` `secret_ref` entries
without matching agent-scoped `company_secret_bindings` rows. When that
happened, the config UI could still look configured, but the real run
path failed pre-dispatch because the secret was not actually bound to
that agent.
### Expected behavior
Every normal agent create, config-update, and pending-approval
activation flow should leave the agent with secret bindings that match
its persisted secret-ref env config.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Create or activate an agent through a flow that persists
`adapterConfig.env` secret refs without synchronizing
`company_secret_bindings`.
2. Observe that the config state can still appear populated.
3. Start a run for that agent.
4. Observe that pre-dispatch binding validation fails because the secret
reference exists but the agent binding does not.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (`pnpm dev`)
### Installation method
Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`)
### Agent adapter(s) involved
- Claude Code
- Not adapter-specific (core bug)
### Database mode
Embedded PGlite / embedded local dev database flow
### Access context
Board (human operator) created or approved the agent; agent runtime
later consumed the config.
### Additional context
This PR focuses on preventing new broken states from normal service
flows and on backfilling the covered legacy pending-approval activation
path.
## What Changed
- Kept the existing branch-local hire-flow fix that synchronized
bindings for route and approval paths.
- Moved the binding integrity invariant into `agentService.create()`,
`agentService.update()` when `adapterConfig` changes, and
`agentService.activatePendingApproval()`.
- Added `server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts`
covering create-time sync, update-time resync, and backfill for legacy
pending-approval agents.
- Removed now-redundant route-layer and approval-layer binding sync
calls once the service layer became authoritative.
- Simplified the affected unit tests so route/approval tests no longer
assert service-owned binding writes directly.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/approvals-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low to medium risk.
- This changes where secret-binding synchronization is enforced, so any
unexpected caller that relied on upper-layer manual sync behavior could
behave differently.
- Agent create/update/activation flows now perform binding
synchronization consistently, which adds binding-table writes at those
mutation points.
- This PR does not retroactively scan and heal every already-broken
historical agent row; it prevents and backfills through the covered
service flows.
> 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 class model via `codex_local`
- Session model family: GPT-5 Codex
- Tool-assisted coding with shell, git, HTTP, and local test execution
- Reasoning mode: medium interactive tool-use workflow
## 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
- [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 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 is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The control plane owns agent lifecycle, issue assignment, routine
dispatch, heartbeat wakeups, and recovery paths
> - Terminated, paused, pending-approval, or otherwise invalid agents
should not receive new work or new execution attempts
> - The old behavior left eligibility checks spread across routes and
services, so assignment and run paths could drift apart
> - This pull request centralizes agent lifecycle eligibility and
applies it consistently to assignment, invocation, routines, recovery,
and UI affordances
> - The benefit is safer autonomy: terminated agents stay paused,
invalid org-chain agents are surfaced, and active agents keep receiving
valid work
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #5103
Related: #1864
Bug fix context:
- What happened: agent assignment and heartbeat/run paths did not share
one eligibility contract, so invalid lifecycle states could still be
considered in some paths.
- Expected behavior: terminated agents must never receive new
assignments or heartbeat runs, and paused or otherwise invalid agents
should be treated as non-invokable consistently.
- Steps to reproduce: create or select an agent in an invalid lifecycle
state, then attempt assignment, routine dispatch, or heartbeat/recovery
wake paths.
- Paperclip version/commit: fixed on top of `paperclipai/paperclip`
`master` at the PR base.
- Deployment mode: applies to the server control plane in local and
authenticated deployments.
## What Changed
- Added shared agent lifecycle eligibility helpers and exported the
related shared types.
- Centralized server-side assignability and invokability checks for
issue assignment, agent routes, heartbeat dispatch, routines, recovery,
and liveness logic.
- Hardened issue assignment so invalid assignees are rejected instead of
queued for work.
- Hardened heartbeat/routine/recovery paths so terminated and otherwise
invalid agents are not woken for new runs.
- Updated board UI affordances to disable invalid agent actions and
surface org-chain warnings where relevant.
- Added targeted shared, server, and UI tests for the new eligibility
behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/agent-eligibility.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-invokability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-archived-company-guard.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
ui/src/lib/company-members.test.ts ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx` — 8
files, 144 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck` — passed.
- Checked the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is a targeted control-plane safety fix and
does not duplicate a planned core feature.
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs/issues; closest related
items are linked above.
- CI and Greptile verification are pending on the opened PR and will be
followed up before requesting merge.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. The intended behavioral shift is that invalid
agents are refused earlier and more consistently, which could expose
existing data with paused, pending, terminated, or broken org-chain
assignees. The added tests cover the critical assignment, heartbeat,
routine, recovery, shared helper, and UI paths. No database migrations
are included.
> 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 GPT-5 Codex via the Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with
shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. Reasoning mode and context window are
managed by the adapter runtime and not exposed in 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 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 (not applicable: no design screenshots requested; UI
behavior is covered by tests)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (not
applicable: no user-facing command or schema docs changed)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending CI)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending Greptile)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution
policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract.
> - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal
same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and
generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads.
> - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context,
which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer
assigned to hostile content.
> - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging,
route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output
does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context.
> - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the
low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`
to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations.
> - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection,
preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind
promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion,
documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks,
enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor
authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic.
> - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review
containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot
surfaces.
Fixes#7531.
## What Changed
- Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus
database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work
products.
- Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent
self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion
checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context.
- Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source
trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime
containment, and quarantine redaction.
- Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust
preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views.
- Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review
contract plan under `doc/plans/`.
- Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`
migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses
`ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered
migration are not broken by the renumbered migration.
## Verification
- Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with
lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment
tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata.
- Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to
`0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT
EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not
broken.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts
ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts
ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `git diff --check`
- GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release
registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify,
policy/review, Socket, and Snyk.
- Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved
Greptile review threads.
- No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly
says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server
authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata,
and UI preset controls.
- Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate
future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions.
- Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover
the current known routes but future integrations must route through the
same containment layer.
- The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is
5/5.
> 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, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI
workflow.
## 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] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added
per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically
required
- [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 by keeping
task ownership, approvals, and operator control inside one control
plane.
> - Agent permissions and plugin-hosted company settings sit on the
boundary between autonomy and governance.
> - V1 needs scoped task assignment rules, plugin extension points, and
clearer company access surfaces without weakening company boundaries.
> - The branch builds the core authorization service, plugin SDK/host
APIs, and UI simplifications needed to support those controls.
> - Paperclip EE plugin surfaces were intentionally moved out of this
core PR per review direction, so this PR now carries only the public
core/plugin infrastructure work.
> - The latest updates preserve the PAP-9937 branch changes that belong
in this PR, remove the `design/` artifacts, and exclude the experimental
`plugin-briefs` package.
> - Greptile feedback was applied through the authorization/audit paths
and the final cleanup commit was re-reviewed at 5/5 with no unresolved
Greptile threads.
> - The benefit is safer assignment control with extension hooks for
richer permission products while preserving simple defaults for normal
operators.
## What Changed
- Added scoped task-assignment authorization decisions and routed
issue/agent assignment mutations through the authorization service.
- Added plugin SDK and host APIs for company settings slots,
authorization policy/grant management, assignment previews, and bridge
invocation scope propagation.
- Simplified core company access UI and moved advanced controls behind
plugin-provided settings surfaces.
- Added retry-now affordances for blocked issue next-step notices.
- Added protected-assignment enforcement for persisted
agent/project/issue policies, including explicit-grant fallback
behavior.
- Added incremental principal-access compatibility backfill for active
agent memberships and role-default human permission grants.
- Added the Markdown code block wrap action fix from the latest branch
changes.
- Removed `design/` artifacts from the PR and removed
`packages/plugins/plugin-briefs` from the final diff.
- Addressed Greptile feedback for plugin actor sanitization, legacy
membership handling, audit pagination, unknown grant-scope metadata, and
startup test mocks.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 2 files passed, 54
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 3 files passed, 62
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` -> 3 files
passed, 28 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` -> passed.
- `git diff --check` -> passed.
- `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` -> passed.
- `CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` -> passed
with no lockfile update.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.interaction.test.tsx` -> 1 test passed.
- `git ls-files design packages/plugins/plugin-briefs | wc -l` -> 0.
- GitHub CI on `40cd83b53` -> all checks passed, merge state `CLEAN`.
- Greptile on `40cd83b53` -> 5/5, 102 files reviewed, 0
comments/annotations added, 0 unresolved review threads.
- Confirmed the PR diff contains no `design/`,
`packages/plugins/plugin-briefs`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, or
`.github/workflows` changes.
## Risks
- Medium: task assignment authorization paths are behaviorally stricter
for protected/private policy data, so existing plugin-authored policies
may block assignment until explicit grants or approval flows are
configured.
- Medium: plugin-host authorization APIs expand the surface area
available to trusted plugins and need careful review for company
scoping.
- Low: startup now performs a principal-access compatibility backfill,
but the migration and runtime backfill use conflict-tolerant inserts.
> 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, tool-enabled workflow with shell,
git, and GitHub CLI access.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The environments subsystem already models execution environments,
but before this branch there was no end-to-end SSH-backed runtime path
for agents to actually run work against a remote box
> - That meant agents could be configured around environment concepts
without a reliable way to execute adapter sessions remotely, sync
workspace state, and preserve run context across supported adapters
> - We also need environment selection to participate in normal
Paperclip control-plane behavior: agent defaults, project/issue
selection, route validation, and environment probing
> - Because this capability is still experimental, the UI surface should
be easy to hide and easy to remove later without undoing the underlying
implementation
> - This pull request adds SSH environment execution support across the
runtime, adapters, routes, schema, and tests, then puts the visible
environment-management UI behind an experimental flag
> - The benefit is that we can validate real SSH-backed agent execution
now while keeping the user-facing controls safely gated until the
feature is ready to come out of experimentation
## What Changed
- Added SSH-backed execution target support in the shared adapter
runtime, including remote workspace preparation, skill/runtime asset
sync, remote session handling, and workspace restore behavior after
runs.
- Added SSH execution coverage for supported local adapters, plus remote
execution tests across Claude, Codex, Cursor, Gemini, OpenCode, and Pi.
- Added environment selection and environment-management backend support
needed for SSH execution, including route/service work, validation,
probing, and agent default environment persistence.
- Added CLI support for SSH environment lab verification and updated
related docs/tests.
- Added the `enableEnvironments` experimental flag and gated the
environment UI behind it on company settings, agent configuration, and
project configuration surfaces.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/cursor-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/gemini-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/opencode-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/pi-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-hire-payload.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Manual verification on a branch-local dev server:
- enabled the experimental flag
- created an SSH environment
- created a Linux Claude agent using that environment
- confirmed a run executed on the Linux box and synced workspace changes
back
## Risks
- Medium: this touches runtime execution flow across multiple adapters,
so regressions would likely show up in remote session setup, workspace
sync, or environment selection precedence.
- The UI flag reduces exposure, but the underlying runtime and route
changes are still substantial and rely on migration correctness.
- The change set is broad across adapters, control-plane services,
migrations, and UI gating, so review should pay close attention to
environment-selection precedence and remote workspace lifecycle
behavior.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip's local Codex adapter, GPT-5-class coding
model with tool use and code execution in the local repo workspace. The
local adapter does not surface a more specific public model version
string in this branch workflow.
## 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The heartbeat runtime, agent import path, and agent configuration
defaults determine whether work is dispatched safely and predictably.
> - Several accumulated fixes all touched agent execution recovery, wake
routing, import behavior, and runtime concurrency defaults.
> - Those changes need to land together so the heartbeat service and
agent creation defaults stay internally consistent.
> - This pull request groups the runtime/governance changes from the
split branch into one standalone branch.
> - The benefit is safer recovery for stranded runs, bounded high-volume
reads, imported-agent approval correctness, skill-template support, and
a clearer default concurrency policy.
## What Changed
- Fixed stranded continuation recovery so successful automatic retries
are requeued instead of incorrectly blocking the issue.
- Bounded high-volume issue/log reads across issue, heartbeat, agent,
project, and workspace paths.
- Fixed imported-agent approval and instruction-path permission
handling.
- Quarantined seeded worktree execution state during worktree
provisioning.
- Queued approval follow-up wakes and hardened SQL_ASCII heartbeat
output handling.
- Added reusable agent instruction templates for hiring flows.
- Set the default max concurrent agent runs to five and updated related
UI/tests/docs.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-list.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts`
- Split integration check: merged this branch first, followed by the
other [PAP-1614](/PAP/issues/PAP-1614) branches, with no merge
conflicts.
- Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: touches heartbeat recovery, queueing, and issue list
bounds in central runtime paths.
- Imported-agent and concurrency default behavior changes may affect
existing automation that assumes one-at-a-time default runs.
- No database migrations are included.
> 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-5.4 tool-enabled coding model, agentic
code-editing/runtime with local shell and GitHub CLI access; exact
context window and reasoning mode are not exposed by the Paperclip
harness.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The board depends on issue, inbox, cost, and company-skill surfaces
to stay accurate and fast while agents are actively working
> - The PAP-1497 follow-up branch exposed a few rough edges in those
surfaces: stale active-run state on completed issues, missing creator
filters, oversized issue payload scans, and placeholder issue-route
parsing
> - Those gaps make the control plane harder to trust because operators
can see misleading run state, miss the right subset of work, or pay
extra query/render cost on large issue records
> - This pull request tightens those follow-ups across server and UI
code, and adds regression coverage for the affected paths
> - The benefit is a more reliable issue workflow, safer high-volume
cost aggregation, and clearer board/operator navigation
## What Changed
- Added the `v2026.415.0` release changelog entry.
- Fixed stale issue-run presentation after completion and reused the
shared issue-path parser so literal route placeholders no longer become
issue links.
- Added creator filters to the Issues page and Inbox, including
persisted filter-state normalization and regression coverage.
- Bounded issue detail/list project-mention scans and trimmed large
issue-list payload fields to keep issue reads lighter.
- Hardened company-skill list projection and cost/finance aggregation so
large markdown blobs and large summed values do not leak into list
responses or overflow 32-bit casts.
- Added targeted server/UI regression tests for company skills,
costs/finance, issue mention scanning, creator filters, inbox
normalization, and issue reference parsing.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-filters.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-reference.test.ts`
- `gh pr checks 3779`
Current pass set on the PR head: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`,
`security/snyk (cryppadotta)`, `Greptile Review`
## Risks
- Creator filter options are derived from the currently loaded
issue/agent data, so very sparse result sets may not surface every
historical creator until they appear in the active dataset.
- Cost/finance aggregate casts now use `double precision`; that removes
the current overflow risk, but future schema changes should keep
large-value aggregation behavior under review.
- Issue detail mention scanning now skips comment-body scans on the
detail route, so any consumer that relied on comment-only project
mentions there would need to fetch them separately.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with terminal tool use and
local code execution in the Paperclip workspace. Exact internal model
ID/context-window exposure is not surfaced 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 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
> - The control plane depends on authenticated routes enforcing company
boundaries and role permissions correctly
> - This branch also touches the issue detail and markdown editing flows
operators use while handling advisory and triage work
> - Partial issue cache seeds and fragile rich-editor parsing could
leave important issue content missing or blank at the moment an operator
needed it
> - Blocked issues becoming actionable again should wake their assignee
automatically instead of silently staying idle
> - This pull request rebases the advisory follow-up branch onto current
`master`, hardens authenticated route authorization, and carries the
issue-detail/editor reliability fixes forward with regression tests
> - The benefit is tighter authz on sensitive routes plus more reliable
issue/advisory editing and wakeup behavior on top of the latest base
## What Changed
- Hardened authenticated route authorization across agent, activity,
approval, access, project, plugin, health, execution-workspace,
portability, and related server paths, with new cross-tenant and
runtime-authz regression coverage.
- Switched issue detail queries from `initialData` to placeholder-based
hydration so list/quicklook seeds still refetch full issue bodies.
- Normalized advisory-style HTML images before mounting the markdown
editor and strengthened fallback behavior when the rich editor silently
fails or rejects the content.
- Woke assigned agents when blocked issues move back to `todo`, with
route coverage for reopen and unblock transitions.
- Rebasing note: this branch now sits cleanly on top of the latest
`master` tip used for the PR base.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issueDetailQuery.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts`
- Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not part of the PR diff.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` before publishing.
## Risks
- Broad authz tightening may expose existing flows that were relying on
permissive board or agent access and now need explicit grants.
- Markdown editor fallback changes could affect focus or rendering in
edge-case content that mixes HTML-like advisory markup with normal
markdown.
- This verification was intentionally scoped to touched regressions and
did not run the full repository suite.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Codex CLI environment
with tool use for terminal, git, and GitHub operations. The exact
runtime model identifier is not exposed inside 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, it is behavior-only and does not
need before/after screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes, or no
documentation changes were needed for these internal fixes
- [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>
Replace assertCompanyShortnameAvailable with deduplicateAgentName in
the create path so duplicate names get auto-suffixed (e.g. Engineer 2)
instead of throwing a conflict error.
Fixes#232
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
When approving an agent join request with a shortname already in use,
append a numeric suffix (e.g. "openclaw-2") instead of returning an error.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Terminated agents (e.g. from rejected hire approvals) were visible in
GET /companies/:companyId/agents and GET /companies/:companyId/org because
list() and orgForCompany() had no status filtering.
- Add ne(agents.status, "terminated") filter to both queries
- Add optional { includeTerminated: true } param to list() for callers
that need all agents (e.g. company-portability export with skip counting)
- orgForCompany() always excludes terminated (no escape hatch needed)
Fixes#5
Rename all workspace packages from @paperclip/* to @paperclipai/* and
the CLI binary from `paperclip` to `paperclipai` in preparation for
npm publishing. Bump CLI version to 0.1.0 and add package metadata
(description, keywords, license, repository, files). Update all
imports, documentation, user-facing messages, and tests accordingly.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add AES-256-GCM local encrypted secrets provider with auto-generated
master key, stub providers for AWS/GCP/Vault, and a secrets service
that normalizes adapter configs (converting sensitive inline values to
secret refs in strict mode) and resolves secret refs back to plain
values at runtime. Extract redaction utilities from agent routes into
shared module. Redact sensitive values in activity logs, config
revisions, and approval payloads. Block rollback of revisions
containing redacted secrets. Filter hidden issues from list queries.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Heartbeat service now resolves session state per-task using agentTaskSessions,
with resolveNextSessionState handling codec-based serialization and fallback
to legacy sessionId. Queued runs are chained — when a run finishes or is reaped,
the next queued run for the same agent starts automatically. Queued runs for
an agent with an already-running run wait instead of failing.
Add task-sessions list endpoint and extend reset-session to accept optional
taskKey for targeted session clearing. Block pending_approval agents from
API key auth. Update agent/company delete cascades to include task sessions.
Update spec docs with task-session architecture.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Agent management: hire endpoint with permission gates and pending_approval status,
config revision tracking with rollback, agent duplicate route, permission CRUD.
Block pending_approval agents from auth, heartbeat, and assignments.
Approvals: revision request/resubmit flow, approval comments CRUD, issue-approval
linking, auto-wake agents on approval decisions with context snapshot.
Costs: per-agent breakdown, period filtering (month/week/day/all), cost by agent
list endpoint.
Adapters: agentConfigurationDoc on all adapters, /llms/agent-configuration.txt
reflection routes. Inject PAPERCLIP_APPROVAL_ID, PAPERCLIP_APPROVAL_STATUS,
PAPERCLIP_LINKED_ISSUE_IDS into adapter environments.
Sidebar badges endpoint for pending approval/inbox counts. Dashboard and company
settings extensions.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Expand AgentDetail with heartbeat history and manual trigger controls.
Enhance NewIssueDialog with richer field options. Add agent connection
string retrieval API. Improve issue routes with parent chain resolution.
Clean up Approvals page layout. Update query keys and validators.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- agentService.getChainOfCommand() walks the reporting tree upward
- GET /agents/:id now returns chainOfCommand array with the full management hierarchy
- GET /agents/me endpoint returns the calling agent with its chain of command
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
New routes: companies, approvals, costs, dashboard, authz. New
services: companies, approvals, costs, dashboard, heartbeat,
activity-log. Add auth middleware and structured error handling.
Expand existing agent and issue routes with richer CRUD operations.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Express server with CRUD routes for agents, goals, issues, projects,
and activity log. Includes validation middleware, structured error
handling, request logging, and health check endpoint with tests.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dotta
Nicky Leach
Devin Foley
dotta
Dotta
Matt Van Horn
Numman Ali
Forgotten
