## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane people use to create, configure, and
run AI agents for work.
> - This change sits in the server-side agent lifecycle and
secret-binding subsystem, where adapter config `env` entries can
reference company secrets.
> - An incident (while trying to configure a Novita sandbox) showed that
an agent can reach a broken runtime state if `adapterConfig.env`
contains `secret_ref` entries but the matching `company_secret_bindings`
rows are missing.
> - The immediate run-path guard and error-surfacing work made the
failure diagnosable, but they did not fully prevent new broken agents
from being created.
> - The risk came from create and approval flows being responsible for
remembering to sync bindings at each call site, which is easy to miss as
new flows are added.
> - This pull request moves the invariant into `agentService`
create/update/activate paths, keeps the existing hire-flow fix, and adds
regression coverage for create, update, and legacy pending-approval
recovery.
> - The benefit is that agent secret binding integrity is enforced
closer to the data mutation point, so future callers inherit the
protection automatically.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8309
### What happened?
A Paperclip agent could persist `adapterConfig.env` `secret_ref` entries
without matching agent-scoped `company_secret_bindings` rows. When that
happened, the config UI could still look configured, but the real run
path failed pre-dispatch because the secret was not actually bound to
that agent.
### Expected behavior
Every normal agent create, config-update, and pending-approval
activation flow should leave the agent with secret bindings that match
its persisted secret-ref env config.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Create or activate an agent through a flow that persists
`adapterConfig.env` secret refs without synchronizing
`company_secret_bindings`.
2. Observe that the config state can still appear populated.
3. Start a run for that agent.
4. Observe that pre-dispatch binding validation fails because the secret
reference exists but the agent binding does not.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (`pnpm dev`)
### Installation method
Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`)
### Agent adapter(s) involved
- Claude Code
- Not adapter-specific (core bug)
### Database mode
Embedded PGlite / embedded local dev database flow
### Access context
Board (human operator) created or approved the agent; agent runtime
later consumed the config.
### Additional context
This PR focuses on preventing new broken states from normal service
flows and on backfilling the covered legacy pending-approval activation
path.
## What Changed
- Kept the existing branch-local hire-flow fix that synchronized
bindings for route and approval paths.
- Moved the binding integrity invariant into `agentService.create()`,
`agentService.update()` when `adapterConfig` changes, and
`agentService.activatePendingApproval()`.
- Added `server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts`
covering create-time sync, update-time resync, and backfill for legacy
pending-approval agents.
- Removed now-redundant route-layer and approval-layer binding sync
calls once the service layer became authoritative.
- Simplified the affected unit tests so route/approval tests no longer
assert service-owned binding writes directly.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/approvals-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low to medium risk.
- This changes where secret-binding synchronization is enforced, so any
unexpected caller that relied on upper-layer manual sync behavior could
behave differently.
- Agent create/update/activation flows now perform binding
synchronization consistently, which adds binding-table writes at those
mutation points.
- This PR does not retroactively scan and heal every already-broken
historical agent row; it prevents and backfills through the covered
service flows.
> 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 Codex class model via `codex_local`
- Session model family: GPT-5 Codex
- Tool-assisted coding with shell, git, HTTP, and local test execution
- Reasoning mode: medium interactive tool-use workflow
## 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 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] 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>
fc95699fde