## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Integrations are governed through the Apps v2 "connections"
substrate documented in `doc/connections/`
> - Contributors adding connectors had no written boundary between
*signing a user in* (identity) and *connecting an external resource* (a
connection), so app-store work could drift into merging the two
> - Unwritten, that boundary risks a design where a sign-in provider's
token gets reused as a resource token, or the identity service grows a
connections hub — exactly the failure the separation exists to prevent
> - This pull request adds an "Identity vs. connections" section to the
public connections docs that names the three planes, states the standing
rule verbatim, and aligns naming across surfaces
> - The benefit is that connector implementers inherit the
identity/connection boundary from accessible repository documentation
instead of re-deriving it
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Docs-only change. No public GitHub issue.
**Problem:** The `doc/connections/` docs describe how to add a connector
(the First-30 matrix and connector playbook) but never state where
identity ends and connections begin. Without an accessible statement of
that boundary, connector work can accidentally blur sign-in tokens and
resource tokens.
**Change:** Adds a public reference section fixing the boundary and
makes it self-contained for contributors without access to private
identity-service implementation documentation.
## What Changed
- `doc/connections/README.md`: adds an **Identity vs. connections**
section with the P1/P2/P3 model, D7 standing rule, rationale, naming
alignment, and canonical-doc cross-reference.
- `doc/connections/FIRST-30-MATRIX.md`: notes that every listed provider
is a plane-P2 connection and links the new section.
- `doc/connections/CONNECTOR-PLAYBOOK.md`: points connector authors to
the boundary and standing rule before implementation.
- Removes inaccessible private-repository documentation links so every
reference in the new public guidance is usable by contributors.
## Verification
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- Verified Markdown table column consistency across the three changed
files.
- Verified no private `paperclip-id` URLs or new internal Paperclip
issue references remain in the diff.
- Current-head CI is fully green, including typecheck, build,
server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, and both e2e shards.
- Greptile reviewed commit `d964abab50b39a79fef394c0b1855dd1f2e4b92b` at
5/5 with no unresolved findings; its connections-doc validation returned
`RESULT: PASS`.
## Risks
Low risk — documentation only. No code, schema, migration, or runtime
behavior changes.
> 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
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), 1M context, extended
thinking with tool use, authored the initial documentation change.
- OpenAI Codex CLI (runtime model identifier not exposed to this
session), agentic reasoning with shell and GitHub tooling, performed PR
preparation, rebase, review-loop diagnosis, and the public-link
correction.
## 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>
3b0156238a