paperclip/doc/connections
Dotta 3b0156238a
docs(connections): cross-reference the identity model (identity vs. connections) (#9953)
## 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>
2026-07-27 19:12:57 -05:00
..
CONNECTOR-PLAYBOOK.md docs(connections): cross-reference the identity model (identity vs. connections) (#9953) 2026-07-27 19:12:57 -05:00
FIRST-30-MATRIX.md docs(connections): cross-reference the identity model (identity vs. connections) (#9953) 2026-07-27 19:12:57 -05:00
GLOSSARY.md feat(connections): add v3 schema core (#9958) 2026-07-21 15:16:26 -05:00
README.md docs(connections): cross-reference the identity model (identity vs. connections) (#9953) 2026-07-27 19:12:57 -05:00
SECURITY-THREAT-MODEL.md feat(connections): add v3 schema core (#9958) 2026-07-21 15:16:26 -05:00
SMOKE-LAB-BROWSER-RUNNER.md feat(mcp) [split 8/8]: add e2e coverage and operator docs (#9563) 2026-07-14 15:48:57 -05:00
SMOKE-LAB-TUTORIAL.md feat(mcp) [split 8/8]: add e2e coverage and operator docs (#9563) 2026-07-14 15:48:57 -05:00

README.md

Apps, Connections, and Integrations

Audience: internal engineers and product contributors working on integrations.

Post-read action: classify a new integration request, pick the right Paperclip layer to change, and avoid creating a parallel connection framework.

Decision Record

Board decisions from PAP-13211 make the Apps v2 substrate on the PAP-10341 branch canonical:

  • D1: Apps v2 is the substrate. The active model is tool_applications, tool_connections, catalog entries, profiles, policy rules, action requests, gateway sessions, audit events, and runtime slots. Connections v1 is retired as an implementation path.
  • D2: one vault, brokered projections. Durable third-party credentials live in company_secrets as secret refs. Adapter config, plugin config, harness credential files, and run environments may receive only brokered or projected credentials.
  • D3: the vocabulary and three-door IA are product law. The default product doors are Apps, Connections, and Review. Protocol and operator-depth concepts live behind Developer or Advanced surfaces.
  • D4: unification lands on PAP-10341. Pages, CircleBack-style harness MCP OAuth, provider gallery work, and plugin-provided integrations converge on this branch instead of spawning new integration substrates.
  • D5: inbound stays thin. External clients that call Paperclip use scoped Paperclip tokens and existing profiles/rules. They do not get a separate permission model.

Canonical Object Model

Use connection as the unifying noun. A connection is four things:

  1. A stored credential reference.
  2. A capability catalog.
  3. A governance layer.
  4. An audit trail.

Everything else is an axis on that object:

Axis Values It answers
Direction outbound, inbound Who is the client?
Transport MCP, native REST/OpenAPI, OAuth app install, webhook How do bytes move?
Auth mode OAuth, API key/PAT, app installation, none What does the secret represent?
Credential owner company, user, run Whose identity acts?
Packaging catalog entry, plugin, skill How does it ship?

MCP is a transport, not a product category. "Install the Discord app", "connect Google Drive", and "add an MCP endpoint" all produce governed connections with different transport/auth values.

Layer Stack

When you are unsure where a change belongs, place it on the narrowest layer that solves the problem:

Layer Owns Examples
Surface user-facing Apps, Connections, Review, Developer/Advanced screens gallery cards, setup wizard, review queue
Governance profiles, bindings, allow/ask-first/block rules, quarantine, audit read-only profile, ask-first write policy
Capability action catalogs, schemas, risk classes, changed-tool review search_issues, create_comment, schema hash
Credential company_secrets, OAuth broker, credential resolver, token broker Slack bot token ref, Google OAuth refresh token ref
Identity actor attribution and token exchange board user, agent run, first-party service identity
Transport how the external system is reached remote HTTP MCP, local stdio, REST/OpenAPI, webhook

The agent should not hold a durable provider credential. It should hold a Paperclip run/session token; the server or broker resolves the connection, checks governance, invokes the provider, and writes audit.

Identity vs. connections

Signing a user in and connecting a resource are different planes with different owners, different token profiles, and different homes. Do not merge them. This section is the public, connections-side statement of the identity model so connector implementers inherit the rule without depending on private identity-service documentation or re-deriving it.

Plane Question Lives where Token profile
P1. Sign-in methods Who are you? paperclip-id (id.paperclip.ing → Account) Minimal-scope provider tokens (openid email profile), used once to authenticate, encrypted at rest, never exported
P2. Connections (Apps) What may your agents touch? Paperclip App instances (tool_connections), acquired via the connect broker for hosted + self-hosted Rich-scope, long-lived resource tokens in the instance's encrypted vault; per-agent grants; ask-first on writes
P3. Login with Paperclip Who may authenticate against us? paperclip-id OIDC provider + DB-backed client registry Our ES256 ID/access tokens issued by us to registered RPs (instances, the broker, future third parties)

Everything in doc/connections/ — the First-30 matrix, the connector playbook, and the connect-broker work — lives on plane P2. It never acquires, stores, or brokers a P1 sign-in token.

The standing rule (D7)

Adopted as a standing rule (decision D7) with the identity-model plan. State it verbatim in any P2 design so the app-store work cannot drift into merging the planes:

Sign-in tokens are never reused as resource tokens; id.paperclip.ing never stores resource tokens; no connections hub on the ID service.

P2 tokens flow broker → instance vault as pass-through only; the id.paperclip.ing Account page therefore must not grow a "Connections" hub. The reasons to hold the planes apart (from the plan §3):

  • Scope discipline. Sign-in wants the narrowest grant; connections want deliberately broad ones. One button that does both is how you grant repo access just to log in.
  • Blast radius. id.paperclip.ing holding every customer's Vercel/Slack/GitHub resource tokens would make it the single juiciest target in the fleet; the broker is intentionally pass-through.
  • Self-hosted symmetry. Instances own their vaults, so self-hosters don't depend on our uptime to use their own connections.
  • Legibility. Sign-in and connections answer different user questions, and every product we benchmarked (Vercel, Railway, GitHub, Google) keeps them on separate pages with separate names.

Naming alignment

Use the surface-correct name for each plane; they intentionally differ:

Surface Plane Name to use
Paperclip App instances P2 "Connections"
id.paperclip.ing Account P1 "Ways to sign in"
id.paperclip.ing admin P3 "OIDC clients" (until the app store productizes it)

Packaging Rule

Default to a catalog entry when an integration can be described as metadata: manifest, auth config, action catalog, resource filters, and policy defaults.

Use a plugin only when the integration needs product code such as custom UI pages, its own tables, workers, migrations, routines, or specialized ingestion. A plugin may bundle catalog entries, but it must not bypass the connection, profile, policy, credential, and audit model.

Use a skill for agent instructions. Skills may use connections; they must not own durable tokens.

Canonical Docs

Migration Notes

Connections v1 contributed useful policy, UX, and rollout thinking, but its implementation branch is no longer the target. When you see old tickets or code using connections, connection_grants, or a provider-directory mental model, translate the intent into Apps v2:

Connections v1 intent Apps v2 home
Provider directory Apps gallery / tool_applications
Configured provider instance Connection / tool_connections
Grant allowlist Profiles, profile bindings, policies
Resource filters Policy/profile conditions plus provider config
Tool broker Tool gateway and runtime supervisor
Connection UX tail Apps, Connections, Review, Developer/Advanced IA

Do not add new work to the retired v1 branch. If an old ticket still describes a valid product gap, retarget it to an active Apps v2 issue or close it as superseded with a link to the replacement.