## 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-agent
companies.
> - The control plane coordinates issues, workspaces, documents,
routines, and board review flows across company-scoped data.
> - The local source branch contained related schema, service, and UI
changes for workspace issue scoping and document/routine annotations.
> - These changes need to move together because db schema, shared types,
server services, and UI consumers form one contract.
> - This pull request extracts the migration-bearing control-plane work
from the source branch onto `origin/master`.
> - The benefit is a standalone branch with deterministic migration
order and focused review for the highest-risk part of the split.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No GitHub issue exists for this branch split. Internal source task:
[PAP-11234](/PAP/issues/PAP-11234).
Problem/motivation:
- Workspace operations need explicit issue scoping so readiness and
blocker handling can be derived correctly.
- Document annotations need reliable live updates, save failure
surfacing, normalized activity keys, and better comment panel behavior.
- Routine descriptions need the same annotation contract as issue
documents so operators can discuss and edit routine text without
special-case infrastructure.
Proposed solution:
- Add the workspace-operation `issueId` migration and readiness scoping.
- Add routine document/annotation schema, shared types, services,
routes, and UI editing support.
- Keep the related migrations in one PR so the renumbered `0106` and
`0107` migrations land in a deterministic order after current `master`.
Alternatives considered:
- Split migrations into separate PRs, rejected because that would create
migration-numbering conflicts and make each branch less standalone.
- Merge this with UI polish, rejected because this branch needs deeper
server/db review.
Roadmap alignment:
- Checked `ROADMAP.md`; the roadmap mentions future recurring routine
capabilities generally, but no duplicate implementation PR for these
annotation/workspace changes was found.
## What Changed
- Added `0106_workspace_operations_issue_id.sql` and
`0107_routine_description_annotations.sql`, plus schema exports.
- Scoped workspace readiness to blocker issues and attached workspace
operation issue ids.
- Scoped issue-thread interaction accept finalization to the source run.
- Added routine document annotation contracts across
db/shared/server/UI.
- Improved document annotation live updates, activity-key normalization,
save failure surfacing, and comment panel behavior.
- Added issue workspace property controls and compact
blocked-by/quick-control UI updates.
- Added focused server and UI regression tests for the new contracts.
## Verification
- `CI=true NODE_ENV=development pnpm install --frozen-lockfile
--prefer-offline`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest
server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routine-document-annotation-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx
ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts --run` — 10 files, 273 tests
passed.
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/db --filter
@paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter
@paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed, including db migration numbering
check.
## Risks
- Migration-bearing PR; merge this branch before any later PR that adds
migrations with higher numbers.
- Cross-layer contract risk across db/shared/server/ui, mitigated with
targeted tests and affected-package typecheck.
- Review should pay special attention to company scoping in new
routine/document annotation paths.
> 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 Paperclip `codex_local` / CodexCoder, GPT-5-class
coding model with tool use and shell execution. Exact runtime snapshot
and context-window setting were not exposed by the Paperclip run
context.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details available from the run context)
- [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 (N/A per source task: do not add screenshots/images unless
specifically part of the work)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A;
no public docs changed)
- [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>
Dotta
dotta