## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server controls secrets, host files, outbound requests, and
workspace commands
> - A red-team review found cases where restricted callers could cross
these trust boundaries
> - These cases could expose credentials or let untrusted input reach
privileged resources
> - This pull request applies least-privilege checks at each affected
server boundary
> - The benefit is safer agent execution without changing the
private-instance bootstrap contract
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Several server paths used authorization, redaction, or content-delivery
rules that were too broad. Restricted agent keys could obtain
company-level operational data. Some adapter and instruction paths could
reach server-owned network or file resources without the required owner
approval.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must redact credential values, enforce restricted-key scopes,
guard outbound network access, prevent same-origin script execution, and
reserve host-level file and command controls for authorized operators.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Configure an authenticated development instance at the parent commit.
2. Exercise the affected APIs with a restricted agent key or a
non-instance-admin company user.
3. Observe that the parent commit returns privileged data or accepts a
privileged operation.
4. Repeat on this branch and observe a redacted response, a safe
download, or an HTTP 403 response.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The findings reproduce from commit `39898ab22` and are fixed by this
pull request.
**Deployment mode**
Authenticated self-hosted server and local development modes.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
## What Changed
- Redact generic secret `value` and `token` fields recursively in
structured logs.
- Classify exact and separator-suffixed `KEY` environment names as
secrets in company exports.
- Limit restricted self-identity responses and protect company run, log,
and secret catalog APIs.
- Route HTTP adapter requests through DNS-pinned SSRF protection with
exact private-origin allowlisting.
- Download HTML, SVG, and other script-capable assets with `nosniff` and
a sandbox CSP.
- Require instance-admin access for external instruction roots and
exports that read them.
- Block agent-authenticated host command persistence across supported
workspace runtime shapes.
- Apply the central runtime-management decision before workspace command
controls.
- Keep the documented first-user instance-admin claim contract
unchanged.
- Add regression tests and server-owner configuration documentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- The Node 24 remediation suite passes with 365 tests. It skips 25
environment-gated tests.
- `pnpm build` passes under Node 24.
- `git diff --check` passes.
- The full local runner reaches known macOS-only general-server harness
failures before the serialized route lane. The Linux PR matrix is the
authoritative full-suite gate.
## Risks
- Restricted agent keys now receive HTTP 403 responses from company-wide
run, log, and secret catalog endpoints.
- Script-capable assets now download instead of rendering inline.
- External instruction roots now require instance-admin access.
- Private HTTP adapter endpoints now require an exact origin in
`PAPERCLIP_HTTP_ADAPTER_PRIVATE_ENDPOINT_ALLOWLIST`.
- Public HTTP adapter endpoints remain enabled. Redirects and metadata
or link-local targets remain blocked.
- No database migration is required.
> 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. The exact serving snapshot and context-window size
are not exposed. The model used tool-enabled reasoning, repository
access, code execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - 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
> - Agents can be configured with env bindings that reference company
secrets — they specify which secret by UUID in `adapterConfig.env`
> - But there is no API endpoint agents can call to look up a secret
UUID by name — `GET /companies/:companyId/secrets` is board-only, and
the internal `secrets.resolve` handler only accepts UUIDs
> - So when an agent needs to wire a new secret (e.g. an API key for a
new skill), it has no way to discover the UUID from a known name like
`HOMEBOX_API_KEY` — the user must find it by inspecting browser network
traffic
> - The fix is a read-only catalog endpoint that agents can call to get
the `id`/`name`/`key`/`status` mapping — no values, no provider config —
just enough to resolve a name to a UUID
> - This PR adds `GET /companies/:companyId/secrets/catalog`, guarded by
`assertBoardOrAgent` + `assertCompanyAccess`, so agents can discover the
UUID they need without board-level access and without any secret value
being exposed
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public issue. Describing inline per the feature request
template:
**Subsystem affected:** `server/` — REST API & orchestration services
**Problem or motivation:**
Agents that configure env bindings must reference secrets by UUID
(`secretId`). There is no agent-accessible API to resolve a secret name
to its UUID. `GET /companies/:companyId/secrets` requires board access;
the internal `secrets.resolve` handler rejects anything that is not
already a UUID. Agents and their operators are forced to find UUIDs by
inspecting browser network requests, which is friction that should not
exist.
**Proposed solution:**
Add a read-only catalog endpoint — `GET
/companies/:companyId/secrets/catalog` — that agents can call. It
returns only non-sensitive metadata (`id`, `name`, `key`, `status`) for
each active company secret, stripped of values, provider configuration,
and version history. Board callers get the same response. The existing
full-detail list endpoint (`GET /companies/:companyId/secrets`) remains
board-only and is unchanged.
**Alternatives considered:**
- Allow agents to call the existing `/secrets` list — rejected because
it returns full rows including provider metadata; narrowing the response
is safer.
- Add a name-to-UUID lookup by query param — simpler but less useful; a
full catalog means the agent can do the resolution locally without a
second round-trip.
**Roadmap alignment:** Does not duplicate anything in `ROADMAP.md`.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/secrets.ts` — new `GET
/companies/:companyId/secrets/catalog` route registered before the
board-only `GET /companies/:companyId/secrets` route. Uses
`assertBoardOrAgent` + `assertCompanyAccess`. Calls `svc.list()` then
projects each row to `{ id, name, key, status }` before responding.
- `server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts` — adds `list` to the
shared mock service object (it was missing); adds a `describe` block
with four test cases: board caller receives stripped metadata, agent
caller in the same company receives stripped metadata, unauthenticated
request gets 401, agent from a different company gets 403.
## Verification
**Automated:**
```bash
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test --run secrets-routes
```
All four new test cases (board access, agent access, unauthed rejection,
cross-company rejection) should pass.
**Manual:**
1. Start the Paperclip server locally.
2. Create a company and a secret via the UI.
3. Call the endpoint as a board user:
```bash
curl http://localhost:3100/api/companies/<companyId>/secrets/catalog \
-H "Authorization: Bearer <board-session-token>"
```
Expect a JSON array with `id`, `name`, `key`, `status` fields — no
`provider`, no `referenceCount`, no version data.
4. Call the same endpoint with an agent API key:
```bash
curl http://localhost:3100/api/companies/<companyId>/secrets/catalog \
-H "Authorization: Bearer <agent-api-key>"
```
Expect the same response.
5. Call with an agent API key scoped to a *different* company — expect
403.
## Risks
Low risk. This is a purely additive, read-only endpoint. No existing
behavior changes. The only new capability is that agents can discover
the UUIDs of secrets in their own company — metadata they already need
to do their job. Secret values are never returned. Authorization reuses
the existing `assertBoardOrAgent` and `assertCompanyAccess` guards
already used throughout the codebase.
## Model Used
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) — Anthropic, extended context,
tool use enabled. The entire change (route, tests, PR description) was
produced by the model operating as a Paperclip CEO agent assigned to the
task.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Austin Pilz <austinpilz@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: root <root@paperclip.pilz.dev>
Co-authored-by: Internet Historian <agent@paperclip.internal>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies.
> - Agents already receive selected company secrets through `env.*`
bindings at run launch, but environment injection is ambient,
long-lived, and not suitable for every secret consumer.
> - The existing binding and secret-access-event models already provide
company-scoped authorization and per-resolution audit seams.
> - Agents need an explicit way to discover only the secrets granted to
them and fetch a value on demand without exposing the wider company
catalog.
> - That capability must remain run-bound, preserve low-trust token
carve-outs, and make every value read visible in both security and
operator audit trails.
> - This pull request adds an `access.*` delivery namespace, two
run-bound agent routes, dual audit logging, documentation, and an
operator grants editor.
> - The benefit is least-privilege, revocable, auditable secret access
while preserving existing env injection behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public issue. Related work:
- Refs #9797 — existing in-sheet agent access UI that this PR extends to
distinguish env and API delivery.
- Refs #9918 — complementary searchable-agent picker improvement for the
same secrets sheet.
- Refs #9530 — related company-wide metadata catalog proposal; this PR
intentionally exposes only the authenticated run's granted aliases and
values.
**Problem / motivation:** Agents can currently consume secrets only
through process environment injection. This keeps values resident for
the run, does not support on-demand consumers, and cannot provide a
discrete operator-visible activity event for each agent-initiated read.
**Proposed solution:** Treat `company_secret_bindings` as the source of
truth for agent secret grants. Keep `env.KEY` as env delivery and add
`access.ALIAS` for API-only delivery; an env binding also implies read
access because the value is already present in the agent process. Add
run-bound list/fetch endpoints that derive scope from the authenticated
heartbeat run and never accept caller-selected overlays.
**Alternatives considered:** A company-wide agent-readable catalog was
rejected for this value path because it increases reconnaissance and
does not prove a per-secret grant. Reusing the ephemeral
environment-probe resolver was rejected because it lacks binding
enforcement. Approval-gated reads and user-scoped secrets remain
deferred beyond v1.
**Roadmap alignment:** This extends the completed **Secrets Manager with
per-agent access** roadmap capability from launch-time env injection to
explicit run-bound API delivery without duplicating a separate planned
initiative.
## What Changed
- Added `access.*` agent binding validation and a dedicated run-bound
resolver that combines `secrets:read` authorization with binding-context
enforcement.
- Added `GET /api/agents/me/secrets` for minimal granted metadata and
`POST /api/agents/me/secrets/:key/value` for on-demand value fetches
with `Cache-Control: no-store`.
- Preserved the existing denials for low-trust review agents,
task-bridge credentials, and skill-test tokens; standard long-lived
agent API keys cannot call the run-bound routes.
- Added dual audit behavior: value attempts write `secret_access_events`
and `activity_log` (`secret.value.read`), while metadata listing writes
the lighter `secret.access.listed` activity event.
- Kept env compatibility: `env.*` remains injected at launch and also
implies API read for the same bound agent; `access.*` never becomes an
environment variable.
- Added the agent-settings **Secret access** editor plus
delivery-mode/alias surfacing on the Secrets page, with focused UI tests
and tokenized layout styles.
- Updated OpenAPI, shared types, agent-facing skill documentation, and
API reference documentation.
### UI Screenshots
P3 produced and reviewed three screenshots using mock data; images are
intentionally not committed to the repository:
- `secret-access-editor.png` — agent settings grant editor.
- `secret-access-light.png` — Secrets-page delivery surfacing in light
mode.
- `secret-access-dark.png` — Secrets-page delivery surfacing in dark
mode.
The source attachments are retained with the implementation task and
linked in the internal handoff; the public page publisher was
unavailable in the PR-prep runtime.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/secret-delivery.test.ts
ui/src/components/AgentSecretAccessEditor.test.tsx` — 5 files, 122 tests
passed.
- Security follow-up: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` — 2 files, 73 tests passed
after active-run and version-consistency fixes.
- Final-head CI: all feature, typecheck, build, e2e, security, and
review gates pass; `General tests (server (1/3))` remains red after one
rerun because unrelated `heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts` cleanup
deletes `heartbeat_runs` before referenced `activity_log` rows.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — feature-local arbitrary-value violations
fixed; command still reports five unchanged `#9627` literals outside
this PR.
- End-to-end QA passed all eight acceptance criteria: grant/list, fetch,
dual audit, env-implies-read, denial matrix, revocation, UI rendering,
and env-injection regression. Evidence:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9921#issuecomment-5027455492
- Security review returned PASS-with-required-changes; the
implementation uses the required dedicated binding-enforcing resolver,
run-bound JWT restriction, run-derived overlays, minimal metadata, and a
resolver redaction-registration hook. Evidence:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9921#issuecomment-5027455382
## Risks
- A compromised agent can exfiltrate any secret explicitly granted to
it; explicit company-scoped/run-scoped grants, revocation, and audit
reduce but cannot remove that inherent capability risk.
- The resolver invokes a redaction-registration hook before returning
values, but the current route has no persistent cross-request per-run
redaction registry. Paperclip-owned later comments/events therefore
cannot yet guarantee automatic scrubbing of a deliberately copied
fetched value; QA classified this as non-blocking residual hardening.
- Audit-event insertion currently fails open if the security-event
insert itself fails; the operator activity event provides partial
redundancy, but a future hardening change should define fail-closed
behavior for value delivery.
- This PR overlaps `ui/src/pages/Secrets.tsx` with #9918 and may require
a straightforward rebase after that PR moves.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.3-codex`, with reasoning, repository tool use,
terminal execution, Paperclip API access, and GitHub CLI capabilities.
Context-window size is not exposed by the runtime.
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with 1M context and tool use assisted with
the UI implementation commit.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - In a multi-tenant deployment, route handlers that take a resource id
(`issue`, `goal`, `project`, `approval`, etc.) look the resource up by
id and then call `assertCompanyAccess` on its `companyId` — 404 if it
doesn't exist, 403 if it exists in another tenant
> - The split status codes are a classic *existence oracle*: any
authenticated user can enumerate ids across tenants by probing for the
403/404 boundary, mapping out which issues, labels, approvals, etc.
exist in other customers' tenants even when they cannot read the
contents
> - The right fix is a single uniform 404 for both "not found" and
"found but cross-tenant", which collapses the oracle but still preserves
write-path checks (active membership, viewer-readonly) for *authorized*
tenants
> - This pull request adds a non-throwing `hasCompanyAccess(req,
companyId)` helper plus a `getAccessibleResource` wrapper that ~130
handlers across 14 route files now use, folding the access check into
the existence check while still running `assertCompanyAccess` for
authorized tenants so viewer-readonly / inactive-membership rejections
fire unchanged on write paths
> - The benefit is closing a multi-tenant information leak without
breaking write-path security or single-tenant local-first behavior
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #709 — asks for company-scope regression coverage across
approval/activity/access routes, because a subtle route refactor could
leak cross-tenant data; this PR hardens exactly those surfaces (uniform
404 across 14 route files including `approvals`, `activity`, `secrets`)
and updates cross-tenant expectations in test files. It does not add the
full coverage matrix #709 asks for — hence Refs, not Closes.
No existing issue covers the oracle itself — described in-PR:
- Route handlers returned 404 for "not found" but 403 for "exists in
another tenant", a classic *existence oracle*: any authenticated user
could enumerate ids across tenants by probing the 403/404 boundary.
- That maps out which issues, labels, approvals, etc. exist in other
customers' tenants even when their contents are unreadable.
- Fix: a uniform 404 for both cases, while keeping write-path checks
(active membership, viewer-readonly) for authorized tenants.
## What Changed
- **`server/src/routes/authz.ts`** — new `hasCompanyAccess(req,
companyId): boolean` helper alongside the existing
`assertCompanyAccess`. Docstring spells out the two-step pattern (404
gate, then `assertCompanyAccess` for write-path checks). The helper
mirrors `assertCompanyAccess`'s company-scope semantics exactly — in
particular, signed-in instance admins do **not** get blanket access to
companies they are not a member of (the repo's `authz-company-access`
tests pin that behavior for `assertCompanyAccess`; an earlier draft of
the helper accidentally widened it for reads).
- **`getAccessibleResource(req, res, lookup, notFoundMessage)`** — the
safe thing is now the easy thing. One helper wraps the whole pattern
(uniform 404 for missing/cross-tenant, then `assertCompanyAccess` for
write-path membership checks) and ~130 handlers across 14 route files
use it:
```ts
const goal = await getAccessibleResource(req, res, svc.getById(id),
"Goal not found");
if (!goal) return;
```
Files: `activity`, `agents`, `approvals`, `assets`, `costs`,
`environments`, `execution-workspaces`, `file-resources`, `goals`,
`issue-tree-control`, `issues`, `projects`, `routines`, `secrets`.
Handlers with bespoke not-found behavior (the legacy `200 []` contract,
audit-logged denials in `file-resources`, null-returning authz helpers)
compose `hasCompanyAccess` directly using the documented two-step
pattern:
```ts
// step 1: close the oracle (uniform 404 for both not-found and
cross-tenant)
if (!existing || !hasCompanyAccess(req, existing.companyId)) {
res.status(404).json({ error: "Goal not found" });
return;
}
// step 2: enforce write-path membership checks for authorised tenants
(no-op on GET)
assertCompanyAccess(req, existing.companyId);
```
Routes where `companyId` comes from *request input*
(`req.params.companyId`, `req.body.companyId`, e.g. in `companies.ts`
and `plugins.ts`) deliberately retain plain `assertCompanyAccess` —
there's no existence oracle to close because the companyId is an input,
not a discovered value.
- **Full-sweep coverage** — a scripted audit of every
`assertCompanyAccess(req, <resource>.companyId)` call site in
`server/src/routes/` found ~55 lookup-then-assert pairs the first pass
missed; all are now gated. Notable ones: the
`/secret-provider-configs/:id` CRUD routes, the agents
instructions-bundle/config-revision/skills-sync routes (which check
access via the `assertCanUpdateAgent` / `assertCanReadAgent` /
`assertCanManageInstructionsPath` helpers), `POST
/heartbeat-runs/:runId/watchdog-decisions`, `GET
/issues/:id/cost-summary`, the environment + environment-lease GET
routes, all six issue-tree-control routes, ~24 issue sub-resource routes
(document annotations, interactions, approvals links, recovery actions,
plan decompositions, lock/unlock), and the three workspace file-resource
routes (these throw `notFound` instead of `forbidden` inside their
audit-logging wrappers, so denied attempts are still activity-logged
server-side while the client sees a uniform 404).
- **Helpers made self-defending** — `assertCanUpdateAgent` /
`assertCanReadAgent` / `assertCanManageInstructionsPath` (agents) and
`assertCanManage{Project,Execution}WorkspaceRuntimeServices` throw
`notFound` for cross-tenant resources before their `assertCompanyAccess`
step, so a future caller that forgets the route-level gate still can't
reopen the oracle.
- **Pattern enforcement** — new `authz-existence-oracle-guard.test.ts`
statically scans `server/src/routes/*.ts` and fails CI on any
`assertCompanyAccess(req, <resource>.companyId)` call that is not
preceded by a `hasCompanyAccess` gate, with an explicit allowlist (plus
staleness check) for the request-input cases. New routes that regress to
the 403/404 split fail the suite with a message pointing at the
documented pattern.
- **Tests** — cross-tenant expectations updated from 403→404 where
routes are now gated; new `hasCompanyAccess` unit tests in
`authz-company-access.test.ts` pin the
instance-admin/local-implicit/agent/none semantics in lockstep with
`assertCompanyAccess`; `write-path-membership.test.ts` (added in an
earlier round) confirms viewer/inactive users are still rejected on
writes.
- **One legacy-contract preserve** — `GET /heartbeat-runs/:runId/issues`
still returns `200 []` for both "doesn't exist" and "cross-tenant" so
the legacy contract is preserved while the oracle stays closed.
## Verification
- `pnpm run typecheck` — PASS.
- `pnpm -F @paperclipai/server exec vitest run` — full server suite
green locally apart from 4 pre-existing local-environment failures
(`paperclip-skill-utils` ×2 and `workspace-runtime` ×1 are
cwd/git-environment dependent — verified identical on a clean checkout
of the base; `heartbeat-process-recovery` is the known macOS flake).
- The new `authz-existence-oracle-guard` test sweeps
`server/src/routes/*.ts` and confirms no remaining
`assertCompanyAccess(resource.companyId)` site without a
`hasCompanyAccess` gate; the only allowlisted holdouts take `companyId`
from request input.
## Risks
- **API contract narrowing.** Any client that specifically checked for
`403` on cross-tenant access now sees `404`. This is a strict narrowing
(one status instead of two for the same negative outcome) and matches
what a client should expect for any id it can't access.
- **Write-path checks preserved.** `assertCompanyAccess` still runs
after the 404 gate on write routes, so viewer-readonly /
inactive-membership rejections fire unchanged for legitimate users.
- **Instance-admin scope unchanged.** `hasCompanyAccess` denies
signed-in instance admins without an explicit membership, exactly like
`assertCompanyAccess` (pinned by unit tests) — so the gate introduces no
new read access for admins.
- **Single-tenant local-first deploys** behave identically — the helper
short-circuits to `true` for `local_implicit` sessions.
- No new env vars, no deployment-mode switch.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context), extended thinking mode; completeness sweep
+ instance-admin parity fix by Claude Fable 5 (1M context).
## Checklist
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] Thinking path traces from project context to this change
- [x] Model used specified
- [x] Checked ROADMAP.md — part of the multi-tenant hardening initiative
- [x] Tests run locally and pass
- [x] Added/updated cross-tenant 404 expectations across test files
- [x] No UI changes
- [x] Documented risks above
- [x] Will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge
Part of the multi-tenant hardening initiative — see also #5864
(per-company JWT keys) and #5865 (plugin tables `company_id`).
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other
environment-bound secrets.
> - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not
model values that should differ by human operator.
> - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing
whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value.
> - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped
runtime checks deterministic and auditable.
> - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user
values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime
resolution gates.
> - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user
provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required
user secrets or active definitions are unavailable.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #224
Refs #6057
This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core
secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It
is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime
secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the
responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time.
Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as
#1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full
user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here.
## What Changed
- Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values,
keeping stored values out of access metadata.
- Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to
pick them alongside existing secret refs.
- Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve
against the human responsible for the run.
- Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter
dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are
inactive.
- Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access.
- Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user
attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be
resolved.
- Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures
surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures.
- Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes.
- Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered
incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`,
`0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and
`0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127`
migrations.
- Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR
contains code/docs/tests only.
## Verification
- PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on
`paperclipai/paperclip:master`.
- PASS: `git diff --check`
- PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg
'^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true`
produced no files.
- PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130`
with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`,
`0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`,
`0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and
`0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`.
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests)
- PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final
Greptile cleanup fixes)
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests
after the final rebase CI fix)
- PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery,
project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors,
watchdog, and stale queue paths.
- PASS: GitHub checks are green on
`2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck +
Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e,
Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review.
- PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on
`2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5,
and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated
threads.
## Risks
- Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible
user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs
before adapter dispatch.
- `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without
values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind
explicitly.
- External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically
provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side
access for non-local vaults.
- The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release
validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge.
- The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream
migrations; the branch migrations use guarded
column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older
draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter
with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal
reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving
through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift
notices, and linked work.
> - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface,
not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments.
> - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes,
CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation
controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the
primitive reviewable end to end.
> - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline
workflow primitive stack.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator
experience and server contract together against `master`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature
request is described inline.
### Problem or motivation
Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company
workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request
review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation,
and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified
pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues,
routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate.
### Proposed solution
Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and
migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes,
aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the
React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail,
review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over
fields, and retry/recovery flows.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because
operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated
workflow patterns.
- Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch
because the operator experience is the main way to validate the
primitive.
- Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same
primitives are useful across future company processes.
## What Changed
- Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts,
server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke
support.
- Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment,
blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and
permission recovery behavior.
- Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item
detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets,
automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets,
liveness banners, and source automation metadata.
- Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared
`DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent
with the pipeline document surfaces.
- Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current
pipeline branch.
## Verification
Current branch refresh:
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31
passed
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19
passed
- `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed
- `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed
- Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`:
sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline
routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental
settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle.
- GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket,
Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review
- Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
Confidence Score 5/5
- GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads
Previously recorded during branch development:
- Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests
- Shared validator tests
- UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests
- Pipeline tutorial smoke path
## Risks
- High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database,
shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI.
- Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention
because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master`
syncs.
- GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting
normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status
checks are green.
- Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing
requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming
rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references.
> 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use,
shell execution, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification
commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip
agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship.
## 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
- [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 rely on local skills, provider-backed secrets, and workspace
file previews during normal execution.
> - Local skill imports need bounded reference-file inventory so direct
skill discovery stays accurate without accidentally walking too much of
the filesystem.
> - Secrets provider setup needs actionable AWS discovery errors so
operators can recover from IAM/config problems without losing manual
form input.
> - The issue detail file viewer should reopen cleanly after the first
close so users can keep inspecting files during task review.
> - This pull request collects the small fixes and regression tests for
those related operator workflows.
> - The benefit is more predictable local skill imports, clearer secrets
setup failure states, and a less brittle file preview interaction.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- No public GitHub issue was found for this extracted local work.
- Related prior sync context: #8536.
- Problem: local skill reference discovery, AWS provider-vault discovery
errors, and issue file preview reopening each had narrow workflow
regressions that made operator recovery harder.
- Expected behavior: skill imports inventory reference files within
bounded local skill directories, AWS discovery failures present safe
actionable guidance while preserving manual values, and closing the
first file preview does not prevent opening another preview.
- Reproduction scope: import a local skill with referenced files,
attempt AWS Secrets Manager discovery with insufficient IAM/list
permissions, and open/close/reopen file previews from an issue detail
page.
- Duplicate search: searched GitHub PRs/issues for `skill inventory
secrets file viewer` and `skill inventory secrets AWS file viewer`; no
matching public duplicate was found.
## What Changed
- Bounded direct local skill file inventory discovery and added
regression coverage for reference file imports.
- Preserved and surfaced safe, actionable AWS Secrets Manager
discovery/import errors in server responses and the secrets UI.
- Kept AWS provider-vault manual form values intact when discovery fails
or returns no candidates.
- Fixed issue file viewer state so closing the first preview still
allows later file previews to open.
- Updated the secrets render test harness to avoid the missing
`React.act` export in the current React package set.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts
ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx`
- Result: 5 test files passed, 116 tests passed.
- Install note: the isolated worktree needed `NODE_ENV=development pnpm
install --frozen-lockfile --prod=false --force` before local
verification because it initially had no dev dependencies installed.
## Risks
- Low-to-medium risk: this touches skill import inventory,
secrets-provider error handling, and file-viewer UI state, but each
change is covered by focused regression tests.
- No migrations.
- No dependency or lockfile changes.
- CI is rerunning on the latest head after review fixes; Greptile is 5/5
with no unresolved Greptile threads.
> 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 coding agent, GPT-5-family model as provided in the
Paperclip run environment, with repository tool use and local command
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents that need scoped, auditable access
to secrets
> - Hosted and external deployments need provider vault configuration
without exposing secret values in Paperclip metadata
> - AWS Secrets Manager vault setup previously required too much manual
operator knowledge
> - Provider vault discovery and removal belong together as an
independent secrets-management improvement
> - This pull request adds AWS provider vault discovery/prefill plus
vault removal flows
> - The benefit is a safer operator path for configuring external secret
storage before higher-level cloud workflows depend on it
## What Changed
- Added shared validators/types for AWS provider vault discovery
payloads and safe provider metadata.
- Implemented AWS provider vault discovery preview on the server.
- Added provider vault removal service/route behavior.
- Added Secrets page UI for discovery prefill, removal messaging, and
related rendering coverage.
- Added Storybook provider-vault fixtures and captured screenshots for
the new UX states.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/secret.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx`
- Result: 4 files passed, 1 embedded Postgres-backed file skipped on
this host because local Postgres init was unavailable.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Storybook screenshot capture against `Product/Secrets` on
`http://127.0.0.1:60381/iframe.html?id=product-secrets--secrets-inventory&viewMode=story&globals=theme:dark`
## Screenshots
Provider vaults tab after this change:
AWS discovery candidate flow:
Provider vault removal confirmation:
## Risks
- Secret provider metadata handling must remain non-sensitive;
validators reject credential-bearing Vault URLs and sensitive AWS
discovery keys.
- AWS discovery depends on deployment credentials being configured
correctly outside Paperclip-managed company secrets.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with local shell/git/tool use.
Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the
local Paperclip adapter runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies and needs secrets handling
to work across local development, hosted operators, and governed agent
execution.
> - The affected subsystem is the company-scoped secrets control plane:
database schema, server services/routes, CLI workflows, and the Secrets
settings UI.
> - The gap was that secrets were local-only and operators could not
manage provider vaults or import existing remote references without
exposing plaintext.
> - This branch adds provider vault configuration plus an AWS Secrets
Manager remote-import path while preserving company boundaries, binding
context, and audit trails.
> - I kept the PR to a single branch PR, removed unrelated
lockfile/package drift, rebased the full branch onto the current
`public-gh/master`, and addressed fresh Greptile findings.
> - The benefit is a reviewable implementation of provider-backed
secrets with focused tests covering provider selection, import
conflicts, deleted secret reuse, rotation guards, and AWS signing
behavior.
## What Changed
- Added provider vault support for company secrets, including provider
config storage, default vault handling, health checks, binding usage,
access events, and remote import preview/commit.
- Added an AWS Secrets Manager provider using SigV4 request signing,
bounded request timeouts, namespace guardrails, cached runtime
credential resolution, and external-reference linking without plaintext
reads.
- Added Secrets UI surfaces for vault management and remote import, plus
CLI/API documentation for setup and operations.
- Stabilized routine webhook secret binding paths and SSH
environment-driver fixture bindings discovered during verification.
- Addressed Greptile and CI findings: no lockfile/package drift,
monotonic migration metadata, disabled-vault default races, soft-deleted
secret hiding/recreate behavior, remove behavior with disabled vaults,
soft-deleted external-reference re-import, non-active rotation guards,
managed-secret soft deletion through PATCH, and per-call AWS SDK
credential client churn.
- Rebased this branch onto `public-gh/master` at `0e1a5828` and
force-pushed with lease to keep this as the single PR for the branch.
## Verification
- `git fetch public-gh master`
- `git rebase public-gh/master`
- `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | grep
'^pnpm-lock\.yaml$' || true` confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the PR
diff.
- Confirmed migration ordering: master ends at `0081_optimal_dormammu`;
this PR adds `0082_dry_vision` and
`0083_company_secret_provider_configs`.
- Inspected migrations for repeat safety: new tables/indexes use `IF NOT
EXISTS`; foreign keys are guarded by `DO $$ ... IF NOT EXISTS`; column
additions use `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS`.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits.
- `pnpm test:run` ran the full stable Vitest path before the Greptile
follow-up commits; it completed with 3 timing-related failures under
parallel load: `codex-local-execute.test.ts`,
`cursor-local-execute.test.ts`, and `environment-service.test.ts`.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts
src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts
src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts` passed on targeted rerun
(`24/24`).
- `pnpm build` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. Vite
reported existing chunk-size/dynamic-import warnings.
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`26/26`).
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec vitest run src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts
src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`39/39`).
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck` passed.
- Captured Storybook screenshots from `ui/storybook-static` for visual
review.
- Latest PR checks on `5ca3a5cf`: `policy`, serialized server suites
1/4-4/4, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review`
pass; aggregate `verify` is still registering the completed child
checks.
- Greptile review loop continued through the latest requested pass; all
Greptile review threads are resolved and the latest `Greptile Review`
check on `5ca3a5cf` passed with 0 comments added.
## Screenshots
Before: the provider-vault and remote-import surfaces did not exist on
`master`; these are after-state screenshots from the Storybook fixtures.
## Risks
- Migration risk: this adds new secret provider tables and extends
existing secret rows. The migrations were checked for monotonic ordering
and idempotent guards, but reviewers should still inspect upgrade
behavior carefully.
- Provider risk: AWS support uses direct SigV4 requests. Automated tests
cover signing, request timeouts, vault-config selection, namespace
guardrails, pending-version archival, sanitized provider errors, and
service-level cleanup paths. A real-vault AWS smoke test remains
deployment validation for an operator with AWS credentials rather than
an unverified merge blocker in this local branch.
- UI risk: the Secrets page and import dialog are large new surfaces;
screenshots are included above for reviewer inspection.
- Verification risk: the full local stable test command hit
parallel-load timing failures, although the exact failed files passed
when rerun directly.
- Operational risk: remote import intentionally avoids plaintext reads;
operators must understand that imported external references resolve at
runtime and may fail if AWS permissions change.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with local shell/tool use in the
Paperclip worktree. Exact context-window size was not exposed by the
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dotta
Austin
Jannes Stubbemann
