## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Managed connections let agents use provider credentials without
exposing those credentials to the control plane UI
> - A self-hosted instance must first establish a trusted credential
destination with Paperclip Cloud
> - The GitHub connection flow repeated that trust decision before
provider consent
> - The local setup route also lost step 2 after enrollment and could
display the PAT identity defaults before enrollment
> - This pull request makes enrollment a one-time instance decision and
sends later provider starts directly to provider consent
> - The benefit is a shorter flow with one clear Paperclip approval and
no required service restart
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12843.
Companion Cloud change:
[paperclipai/paperclip-cloud#391](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-cloud/pull/391).
## What Changed
- Made `stage=setup` authoritative during initial route hydration and
enrollment return.
- Added a contained one-time enrollment screen with provider-specific
copy.
- Accepted a provider `authorizationUrl` from Paperclip Cloud only when
it matches the exact GitHub or Google OAuth endpoint.
- Preferred the direct provider URL while retaining the legacy
confirmation URL fallback.
- Preserved the company-bound identity and agent-access draft across the
full-page enrollment callback, including cold company-context hydration.
- Kept GitHub defaulted to “My GitHub account” and “Any agent,”
including before Cloud advertises the managed method.
- Updated GitHub identity and agent-access copy for responsible-person
and dedicated-agent behavior.
- Labeled the provider action “Continue to GitHub.”
- Added parser, routing, cold-hydration, access-restoration, visibility,
fallback, defaults, and copy tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/paperclip-cloud-connector.test.ts
ui/src/pages/apps/AppsConnect.test.tsx` (114 tests passed)
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Live browser proof used a new data directory on `127.0.0.1:3117` and
the exact Cloud PR revision on staging.
- The fresh flow selected “My GitHub account” and “Any agent,” showed
one enrollment approval, returned to local step 2, and connected GitHub
without a second Paperclip confirmation or login.
- The connected screen showed one selected repository, a long-lived
token, installation metadata, a successful access refresh, and healthy
webhook delivery.
- Gmail on the same instance went directly to Google consent without
another Paperclip approval.
- Restarting the same data directory preserved enrollment. A second new
data directory required exactly one new approval.
- A final fresh-data-dir rerun selected a dedicated GitHub identity for
Ada before enrollment, approved the instance once, returned to step 2,
retained Ada after a Back check, connected directly through GitHub, and
finished with “Used only by Ada,” one selected repository, and a
long-lived token.
- Port 3100 remained untouched throughout the proof.
## Risks
- The new Cloud field is additive and restricted to the exact GitHub and
Google OAuth origins and paths, with no embedded credentials or URL
fragment.
- An older Cloud response still works through `confirmationUrl`.
- A self-hosted instance still requires one signed Cloud enrollment.
Managed Cloud instances do not render the enrollment screen.
- Provider authentication and consent remain mandatory after instance
enrollment.
- No schema migration is included in this pull request.
> 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-5.6-sol`, extended reasoning, tool use, code
execution, browser control, and multi-file repository editing. The
context window size was not provided.
## 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
5da6499860