## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents and board users operate inside a company-scoped control plane
where permissions decide which mutating actions they can perform
> - Company skills are part of the reusable agent-company setup surface,
but skill mutation had been coupled to broader agent-creation authority
> - That coupling meant importing or managing skills required a
permission that also implies hiring power, which is broader than the
operation needs
> - Paperclip already has a grant-based permission vocabulary, so skill
mutation should be authorized through a dedicated `skills:create`
capability while preserving existing default behavior for trusted agents
> - This pull request adds the skill creation permission contract,
enforces it on company skill mutations, exposes it in agent permission
management, and documents the changed CLI/API expectations
> - The benefit is a narrower, auditable permission path for skill
import/create/update/delete flows without forcing agents to receive
broader agent-creation authority
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue is linked.
Problem: company skill mutation APIs were effectively tied to broader
agent creation authority. This PR splits skill mutation authorization
onto the public `skills:create` permission while keeping existing
default skill creation behavior for agents unless explicitly disabled.
Related public PR found during duplicate search: #5330. That PR uses an
older `canManageSkills` shape; this PR implements the `skills:create`
grant path instead.
## What Changed
- Added `skills:create` to shared permission constants and agent
permission types/validators as `canCreateSkills`.
- Backfilled default human/member role grants for `skills:create`.
- Updated company skill mutation routes to require board/user or agent
access to `skills:create`, while preserving legacy/default agent
behavior through `canCreateSkills` unless explicitly disabled.
- Updated agent permission update handling, UI permission controls,
duplicate-agent payloads, plugin SDK fixtures, and agent detail API
surfaces for `canCreateSkills`.
- Added regression coverage for skill route authorization, permission
schema/default behavior, invite grants, omitted permission updates, and
duplicate-agent payloads.
- Updated CLI and Paperclip skill documentation for the new skill
creation permission.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/invite-join-grants.test.ts
ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts` — 5 files, 90 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run ...changed files...` was attempted first, but the
stable wrapper rejects explicit file arguments; direct Vitest was used
for the same targeted files.
## Risks
- Moderate authorization risk: this changes the gate for company skill
mutations, so the tests cover board grant checks, agent explicit grant
checks, legacy default allowance, and explicit denial.
- Migration/backfill risk is low: the migration only grants
`skills:create` to existing human roles that already need broad
management capability.
- UI/API compatibility risk is low: `canCreateSkills` remains default-on
for full agent permissions, and the update validator preserves omitted
values so unrelated permission edits do not re-enable disabled skill
creation.
> 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 coding agent with terminal/tool use 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] 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>
ed65d08d57