Files
paperclip/docs
Devin Foley 67ca8287e8 fix(codex-local): seed managed auth into isolated homes (#8403)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The `codex_local` adapter isolates local Codex runs by assigning
managed `CODEX_HOME` state per company and per agent
> - PR #8272 tightened that isolation, but it left a gap: once
`CODEX_HOME` became explicit, the adapter treated it like a user-managed
override and skipped auth seeding
> - That meant newly isolated agents could launch with no usable
`auth.json`, hit OpenAI unauthenticated, and fail with `401 Missing
bearer`
> - Users who had already persisted one of those broken managed homes
could remain stranded even after config changes unless Paperclip
repaired the home itself
> - This pull request teaches Paperclip to seed managed homes correctly,
backfill already-stranded managed homes on startup, and reject
credential-less managed homes before they reach the provider
> - The benefit is that affected managed `codex_local` agents recover
automatically after upgrade and restart, without manual `CODEX_HOME`
surgery

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

- Fixes #497
- Refs #5028
- Related PR: #8272
- Related PR: #8399

## What Changed

- Distinguished Paperclip-managed `CODEX_HOME` paths from genuine
external overrides and always seeded auth into managed homes, even when
`CODEX_HOME` is explicit in config.
- Wrote API-key-backed `auth.json` files for managed homes when
`OPENAI_API_KEY` is configured, otherwise symlinked the shared Codex
auth for subscription/OAuth flows.
- Added a startup reconciliation pass that backfills already-isolated
managed homes created by the broken release so upgrade plus restart
repairs stranded agents automatically.
- Preserved previously resolved API-key auth when the stored
`OPENAI_API_KEY` binding is secret-backed and startup cannot resolve the
secret value directly.
- Hardened the managed-home preflight to require a credential-bearing
`auth.json`, not just file presence, and documented the recovery
behavior.
- Added regression tests covering managed-home seeding, fail-fast
behavior, and server-side startup reconciliation.

## Verification

```bash
pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/codex-home.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/execute.auth.test.ts server/src/__tests__/codex-auth-reconciliation.test.ts server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
pnpm check:tokens
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
```

GitHub Actions `PR` workflow is green on latest head `e5b1e08d4`,
including policy, typecheck, test shards, build, e2e, serialized server
suites, and canary dry run. Greptile Review is green on latest head with
0 comments added. No UI changes.

## Risks

- Startup reconciliation now mutates persisted managed Codex homes at
boot. Risk is low because it only touches Paperclip-managed
company/agent home paths and no-ops when a home already has usable auth.
- Genuine external `CODEX_HOME` overrides remain intentionally
self-managed, so those users still own repair steps inside their custom
home.
- Hosts with neither shared Codex auth nor an explicit per-agent API key
now fail earlier with a clearer adapter error instead of surfacing a
downstream `401`, which changes timing but not capability.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in a local Codex session; exact
served model ID/context window were not exposed to the session. Tool use
and code execution were 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 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] 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>
2026-06-20 16:17:54 -07:00
..
2026-03-13 21:10:45 -05:00