6 Commits

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Devin Foley	fc95699fde	fix(server): enforce agent secret binding sync across lifecycle flows (#8307) ... ## 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>	2026-06-18 21:26:36 -07:00
Devin Foley	04173b341d	fix: resolve secret refs before sandbox draft probes (#8256) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to manage agent execution environments, including plugin-declared sandbox providers. > - The failing user path here was `Test draft` for an unsaved sandbox environment using a schema field marked `format: "secret-ref"`. > - Saved environments already resolve secret refs before provider use, but the unsaved probe path was forwarding the selected secret UUID directly to the provider, which made Novita draft probes fail. > - Fixing that safely required a probe-only secret resolution path with explicit actor authorization and audit context, because an unsaved draft has no persisted environment binding to authorize against. > - Once that was fixed, CI and review surfaced follow-up hardening work: preserve actor source through the draft-probe path, prevent late heartbeat finalization from overwriting already-terminal runs, avoid duplicate successful-run handoff wakes for comment-driven runs, make SSH git ref updates tolerate concurrent managed-runtime restores, and keep the skills catalog build from failing on transient GitHub errors for pinned references. > - The result is that Novita draft probes now behave like saved environments, the new secret access path is constrained and audited, and the PR is green end-to-end with Greptile at 5/5. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue was found after searching open and closed Paperclip issues for `novita`. Related PR search found [#8255](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/8255), but it addresses Novita/dev-SDK linking rather than this draft probe bug. Bug summary: - What happened? When a board user configured a sandbox environment backed by a schema-driven plugin provider such as Novita, selecting an existing company secret for `apiKey` and clicking `Test draft` failed because the probe received the secret UUID instead of the resolved secret value. - Expected behavior `Test draft` should resolve secret-ref fields before calling the provider probe, just like the saved runtime path does. - Steps to reproduce 1. Open `Company Settings -> Environments`. 2. Create or edit a `Sandbox` environment using a provider with a `format: "secret-ref"` field such as `Novita Agent Sandbox`. 3. Select an existing company secret for `apiKey`. 4. Click `Test draft`. 5. Observe the probe failure before this patch. - Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on a local `master` dev checkout; fixed and verified on branch commit `ed982d0c0`. - Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`). - Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). - Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific in the core bug path; affects schema-driven sandbox provider plugins such as Novita. - Database mode Not database-related. - Access context Board (human operator). - Node.js version `v25.6.1`. - Operating system `macOS 15.7.4`. - Relevant logs or output The user-visible failure was `Novita sandbox probe failed` during `Test draft`. ## What Changed - Resolved schema-marked secret-ref fields during unsaved sandbox environment probes by adding a dedicated probe-time secret resolution path in `environment-config.ts`. - Passed `companyId` plus the full authenticated actor context into the draft probe normalization route so secret resolution stays company-scoped, authorized, and auditable. - Hardened ephemeral secret resolution so unsaved probes require `secrets:read`, preserve the original actor source (`local_implicit`, `agent_jwt`, etc.), and emit usable audit metadata. - Added a conditional heartbeat run-status update so late adapter completions cannot overwrite runs that were already cancelled or otherwise terminal. - Skipped successful-run handoff synthesis for comment-driven wakes, which removes the extra wake/run that was breaking `heartbeat-comment-wake-batching`. - Retried managed-runtime SSH git ref updates on concurrent ref-lock races instead of failing the restore path. - Reused the previous skills-catalog manifest entry when a pinned GitHub reference fails with a recoverable transient error during CI catalog generation. - Added focused regression coverage for the draft probe, ephemeral secret access, heartbeat handoff behavior, SSH ref-lock races, and catalog fallback behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/openclaw-gateway-adapter.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/ssh-fixture.test.ts -t "merges concurrent remote commits through the managed runtime restore path"` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/skills-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils build` - `gh pr checks 8256` - Manual/live validation: the same fix was cherry-picked into the running local dev checkout and the user re-tested the Novita `Test draft` flow successfully after the server restart. ## Risks - Low risk: the Novita-specific user-facing fix is isolated to unsaved sandbox draft probes for plugin schema fields marked `format: "secret-ref"`. - The new ephemeral secret resolution path is intentionally stricter than the original broken behavior; regressions would most likely show up as denied draft probes rather than accidental secret exposure. - The heartbeat, SSH, and catalog changes are all defensive; if they regress, they should affect test/CI orchestration paths rather than persisted company data. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex Local (`codex_local` in Paperclip). The runtime does not expose the exact backend model ID in agent metadata. GPT-5-class coding model with shell/tool use, repository editing, test execution, GitHub review handling, and issue-thread coordination. ## 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 - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] 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>	2026-06-18 07:48:09 -07:00
Dotta	dbebf30c89	Add low-trust review containment (#7530) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract. > - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads. > - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context, which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer assigned to hostile content. > - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging, route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations. > - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection, preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion, documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks, enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic. > - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot surfaces. Fixes #7531. ## What Changed - Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work products. - Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context. - Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime containment, and quarantine redaction. - Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views. - Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review contract plan under `doc/plans/`. - Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered migration are not broken by the renumbered migration. ## Verification - Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata. - Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not broken. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - `git diff --check` - GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify, policy/review, Socket, and Snyk. - Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved Greptile review threads. - No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata, and UI preset controls. - Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions. - Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover the current known routes but future integrations must route through the same containment layer. - The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is 5/5. > 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, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically required - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-05 16:48:02 -05:00
Dotta	d67347be77	[codex] Provider vault secrets UX (#6381) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents that need scoped, auditable access to secrets > - Hosted and external deployments need provider vault configuration without exposing secret values in Paperclip metadata > - AWS Secrets Manager vault setup previously required too much manual operator knowledge > - Provider vault discovery and removal belong together as an independent secrets-management improvement > - This pull request adds AWS provider vault discovery/prefill plus vault removal flows > - The benefit is a safer operator path for configuring external secret storage before higher-level cloud workflows depend on it ## What Changed - Added shared validators/types for AWS provider vault discovery payloads and safe provider metadata. - Implemented AWS provider vault discovery preview on the server. - Added provider vault removal service/route behavior. - Added Secrets page UI for discovery prefill, removal messaging, and related rendering coverage. - Added Storybook provider-vault fixtures and captured screenshots for the new UX states. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/secret.test.ts server/src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts ui/src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx` - Result: 4 files passed, 1 embedded Postgres-backed file skipped on this host because local Postgres init was unavailable. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Storybook screenshot capture against `Product/Secrets` on `http://127.0.0.1:60381/iframe.html?id=product-secrets--secrets-inventory&viewMode=story&globals=theme:dark` ## Screenshots Provider vaults tab after this change:  AWS discovery candidate flow:  Provider vault removal confirmation:  ## Risks - Secret provider metadata handling must remain non-sensitive; validators reject credential-bearing Vault URLs and sensitive AWS discovery keys. - AWS discovery depends on deployment credentials being configured correctly outside Paperclip-managed company secrets. > 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-based coding agent with local shell/git/tool use. Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the local Paperclip adapter runtime. ## 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 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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-19 15:50:23 -05:00
Dotta	705c1b8d81	[codex] Add routine env secrets support (#6212) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Scheduled routines are the control-plane path for recurring agent work. > - Routines already had dispatch/history, but their runtime environment did not carry routine-owned secret bindings through execution. > - Operators need routine-specific secrets that can override project/agent env without exposing secret values in history, logs, or access events. > - This pull request adds the routine env runtime contract, wires it into execution, and makes the routine UI/history surfaces show safe secret metadata. > - The benefit is that routine executions can use scoped secret refs predictably while preserving company boundaries and auditability. ## What Changed - Added routine env persistence/runtime support, including `routines.env`, `routine_runs.routine_revision_id`, revision snapshots, and idempotent migration `0086_routine_env_runtime_contract`. - Resolved routine env during heartbeat adapter config assembly with precedence `agent < project < routine` and secret access events recorded against the routine consumer. - Added secret binding synchronization for routine create/update/restore flows and guarded cross-company, missing, disabled, and deleted secret cases. - Added a Secrets tab to routine detail, env/secret history diff rendering, and Storybook coverage for the new UI states. - Added server/UI regression tests, including an embedded-Postgres QA path for routine secret execution and restore behavior. - Updated implementation/database docs for routine env and secret-binding behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` after rebasing onto `public-gh/master` to refresh workspace links for the newly-added upstream Grok adapter package. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/qa-routine-secrets-e2e.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx` passed: 5 files, 92 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed across the workspace. - `pnpm build` passed. Vite emitted the existing large-chunk/dynamic-import warnings. - UI screenshots were captured locally during QA in `artifacts/pap-9521/` and `artifacts/pap-9522/`; generated screenshots are not committed to avoid adding binary artifacts to the repo. ## Risks - Migration risk is limited by `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for the new columns, FK, and index, and the migration is ordered as `0086` immediately after upstream `0085`. - Runtime behavior changes env precedence for routine executions by adding routine env as the highest-precedence layer; tests cover agent/project/routine precedence. - Secret handling is security-sensitive; tests cover value-free manifests/events/errors, disabled/missing/deleted secrets, and cross-company rejection. - UI history now renders routine env/secret diffs; tests and Storybook stories cover the main rendering paths. > 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell/tool use and medium reasoning effort. ## 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 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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-17 16:30:34 -05:00
Dotta	778e775c35	Add secrets provider vaults and remote import (#5429) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies and needs secrets handling to work across local development, hosted operators, and governed agent execution. > - The affected subsystem is the company-scoped secrets control plane: database schema, server services/routes, CLI workflows, and the Secrets settings UI. > - The gap was that secrets were local-only and operators could not manage provider vaults or import existing remote references without exposing plaintext. > - This branch adds provider vault configuration plus an AWS Secrets Manager remote-import path while preserving company boundaries, binding context, and audit trails. > - I kept the PR to a single branch PR, removed unrelated lockfile/package drift, rebased the full branch onto the current `public-gh/master`, and addressed fresh Greptile findings. > - The benefit is a reviewable implementation of provider-backed secrets with focused tests covering provider selection, import conflicts, deleted secret reuse, rotation guards, and AWS signing behavior. ## What Changed - Added provider vault support for company secrets, including provider config storage, default vault handling, health checks, binding usage, access events, and remote import preview/commit. - Added an AWS Secrets Manager provider using SigV4 request signing, bounded request timeouts, namespace guardrails, cached runtime credential resolution, and external-reference linking without plaintext reads. - Added Secrets UI surfaces for vault management and remote import, plus CLI/API documentation for setup and operations. - Stabilized routine webhook secret binding paths and SSH environment-driver fixture bindings discovered during verification. - Addressed Greptile and CI findings: no lockfile/package drift, monotonic migration metadata, disabled-vault default races, soft-deleted secret hiding/recreate behavior, remove behavior with disabled vaults, soft-deleted external-reference re-import, non-active rotation guards, managed-secret soft deletion through PATCH, and per-call AWS SDK credential client churn. - Rebased this branch onto `public-gh/master` at `0e1a5828` and force-pushed with lease to keep this as the single PR for the branch. ## Verification - `git fetch public-gh master` - `git rebase public-gh/master` - `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | grep '^pnpm-lock\.yaml$' || true` confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the PR diff. - Confirmed migration ordering: master ends at `0081_optimal_dormammu`; this PR adds `0082_dry_vision` and `0083_company_secret_provider_configs`. - Inspected migrations for repeat safety: new tables/indexes use `IF NOT EXISTS`; foreign keys are guarded by `DO $$ ... IF NOT EXISTS`; column additions use `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. - `pnpm test:run` ran the full stable Vitest path before the Greptile follow-up commits; it completed with 3 timing-related failures under parallel load: `codex-local-execute.test.ts`, `cursor-local-execute.test.ts`, and `environment-service.test.ts`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts` passed on targeted rerun (`24/24`). - `pnpm build` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. Vite reported existing chunk-size/dynamic-import warnings. - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`26/26`). - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`39/39`). - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - Captured Storybook screenshots from `ui/storybook-static` for visual review. - Latest PR checks on `5ca3a5cf`: `policy`, serialized server suites 1/4-4/4, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review` pass; aggregate `verify` is still registering the completed child checks. - Greptile review loop continued through the latest requested pass; all Greptile review threads are resolved and the latest `Greptile Review` check on `5ca3a5cf` passed with 0 comments added. ## Screenshots Before: the provider-vault and remote-import surfaces did not exist on `master`; these are after-state screenshots from the Storybook fixtures.    ## Risks - Migration risk: this adds new secret provider tables and extends existing secret rows. The migrations were checked for monotonic ordering and idempotent guards, but reviewers should still inspect upgrade behavior carefully. - Provider risk: AWS support uses direct SigV4 requests. Automated tests cover signing, request timeouts, vault-config selection, namespace guardrails, pending-version archival, sanitized provider errors, and service-level cleanup paths. A real-vault AWS smoke test remains deployment validation for an operator with AWS credentials rather than an unverified merge blocker in this local branch. - UI risk: the Secrets page and import dialog are large new surfaces; screenshots are included above for reviewer inspection. - Verification risk: the full local stable test command hit parallel-load timing failures, although the exact failed files passed when rerun directly. - Operational risk: remote import intentionally avoids plaintext reads; operators must understand that imported external references resolve at runtime and may fail if AWS permissions change. > 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 local shell/tool use in the Paperclip worktree. Exact context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 - [ ] 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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-05-09 18:22:17 -05:00