<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their work
> - Each user can let agents tidy that user's Mine inbox
> - The profile control saves either an open policy or an agent
allowlist
> - Explicit inbox archive requests checked only the separate
`inbox:manage` grant
> - This made the saved profile control ineffective for explicit user
targets
> - This pull request makes authorization honor the target user's saved
policy
> - The benefit is that the UI control and the API now enforce the same
user choice
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
An agent received `403 inbox_cross_user_grant_required` when it archived
an issue with an explicit `userId`. The denial occurred even when that
user had enabled inbox management for the agent in Profile Settings. The
authorization service checked only `principal_permission_grants` for
explicit targets and ignored the saved user inbox policy.
**Expected behavior**
An explicit target is allowed when the target user saved an `open`
policy or an allowlist that contains the agent. An unsaved default-open
policy must remain limited to the responsible-user path. A scoped
`inbox:manage` grant must remain an administrative override.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Save an inbox-agent allowlist for a user.
2. Include the acting agent in that allowlist.
3. Call `POST /api/issues/{issueId}/inbox-archive` with that user's
explicit `userId`.
4. Observe the incorrect `403 inbox_cross_user_grant_required` response
on the previous implementation.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on `7ea2068ef8`.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is a core authorization bug.
**Database mode**
External Postgres in production. The regression tests use embedded
PostgreSQL.
**Access context**
Agent bearer authentication.
Related foundations: #9658 and #9724.
## What Changed
- Read the target user's saved inbox-agent policy before the
explicit-target decision.
- Allow saved `open` policies and matching allowlists for explicit
targets.
- Keep unsaved implicit-open policies responsible-user-only.
- Keep scoped `inbox:manage` grants as administrative overrides.
- Add service and route regressions for allow, deny, archive, unarchive,
and audit metadata.
- Update the implementation contract and agent-facing inbox API
guidance.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts` — 66 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is limited to explicit inbox targets with a saved
policy.
- A missing policy row still denies explicit cross-user access.
- A non-matching allowlist and a disabled policy still deny access
unless a scoped administrative grant applies.
> 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 runtime did not expose the exact
model build or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, repository
tools, code execution, and focused 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>
3e1ea39ff3