## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane people use to manage AI-agent
companies.
> - Operators need to grant secrets to specific agents safely and
efficiently.
> - The secrets access sheet previously used a native select while
similar agent-assignment surfaces use a searchable picker.
> - That inconsistency makes finding an agent slow and error-prone as
companies grow.
> - This pull request reuses the shared agent picker behavior for
single-agent secret access grants.
> - The benefit is a consistent, searchable selection experience without
changing secret-access semantics.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9797
**Problem / motivation:** The in-sheet agent access form introduced in
#9797 renders every grantable agent in a native select. In companies
with many agents, operators cannot filter by name or title and the
experience differs from other agent-selection surfaces.
**Proposed solution:** Add a single-select variant beside the existing
`AgentMultiSelect`, then use it in the secret access grant form.
**Alternatives considered:** Keeping a native select would preserve less
code but would not scale or align with existing searchable agent
selection.
**Roadmap alignment:** This is a focused usability fix for an existing
core control-plane surface and does not overlap an unstarted roadmap
initiative.
## What Changed
- Added `AgentSelect`, a searchable single-agent popover that filters by
agent name and title.
- Replaced the secret access form's native select with the shared
searchable picker.
- Added focused coverage for filtering, selecting, callback behavior,
and popover closure.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/AgentMultiSelect.test.tsx` —
passes (3 tests).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passes.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — branch adds no violations; the command
currently fails on five unchanged `#9627` literals already present on
`master`.
- Manual: open Secrets, choose a secret, add agent access, filter by
agent name or title, select the result, and grant access.
## Risks
- Low risk: the change is limited to agent selection UI and preserves
the existing grant request payload.
- The new picker depends on the existing popover/input primitives and
resets its filter when closed.
> 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-series coding agent (exact runtime model ID and
context-window size are not exposed), with reasoning, repository tool
use, terminal execution, and GitHub CLI capabilities.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 6/8 and focuses on UI API, shared
components, and Tools/Profile surfaces
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: Operators need typed clients and administration surfaces that
compile independently before navigation exposes them.
- Proposed solution: Adds UI APIs, hooks, libraries, shared components,
Tools/Profiles pages, and the plugin settings consumer required by the
new company-scoped API.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is
`pap10341-split/05-runtime-integration`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: UXDesigner sanity pass on Tools/Profile surfaces;
Greptile on every PR.
## What Changed
- Adds UI APIs, hooks, libraries, shared components, Tools/Profiles
pages, and the plugin settings consumer required by the new
company-scoped API.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean
- Focused UI Vitest run with `NODE_ENV=test` — 28 files, 183 tests
passed
## Risks
- Large dead-code UI additions can drift from activation routes; PR 7
supplies the registration layer and top-level parity catches omissions.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Stack Coordination
- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.
## UI Evidence
QA captured these from the live Garden MCP split stack at 1440px and
verified clean rendering:
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta
