Merge branch 'claude/adding-hosts-phone-docs-e472b0'

README.md

@@ -226,8 +226,8 @@ bastion — the last needs jump hosts the connection layer has not got. All thre
 
 ### Working as a team
 
-**TEAMS** in the nav rail creates a team, adds members and shares vaults. One distinction runs through the
+**TEAMS** in the nav rail creates a team, adds and invites members, shares vaults, hands a team over and
-whole screen and is worth having before you use it.
+archives one. One distinction runs through the whole screen and is worth having before you use it.
 
 **Adding somebody to a team and giving them a key are two different acts, and only the first is something
 the server can do.** Adding a member changes what the server will *serve* them: the team's vaults appear in
@@ -244,7 +244,58 @@ published in a log every other client also reads. **It does not prove the key is
 Compare the fingerprint with them over something this server does not carry; that is the only step that
 closes it, and the success message says so every time.
 
-Three limits, stated rather than discovered:
+**Somebody with no account here yet can be invited, and nothing is sent.** There is one button — **ADD
+MEMBER** — and it does whichever of the two applies, because which one applies is a fact about the server's
+account table rather than about what you are trying to do. If the directory knows the address, that account
+is added straight away. If it does not, the address is invited instead, and the status line says which
+happened, because the difference decides what you do next.
+
+An invitation is a standing instruction rather than a message: the next account that signs in with that
+address joins this team, at the role you chose. There is no link and no token, because this server has no
+outbound mail path and does not pretend otherwise — telling them to go and sign in is your job, over a
+channel this server does not carry, and a link nobody can deliver would be worse than no link. An
+invitation lasts fourteen days, so an address handed on to whoever takes the job next does not carry a
+standing offer for ever; it can be withdrawn until it is taken up; and like adding a member it grants
+nothing readable, so somebody still has to press SHARE KEY afterwards.
+
+The one thing the merged button costs is worth knowing. Adding an account the directory knows also hands
+you the public key you are about to verify and wrap a vault to, and an invitation cannot do that because
+there may be no key yet. So when you are adding somebody *in order to* share a vault with them, the useful
+sequence is still the same one: add them, see them appear in the members list, then share.
+
+Inviting an address that already belongs to a member of the team is refused and says so. Inviting one that
+merely *has* an account here is not — that would make this a way of asking the server which addresses have
+accounts, which is not a question anybody willing to create a team first should be able to put to it. Such
+an invitation simply gets claimed sooner: within the hour, on the same sweep that records they were here,
+rather than waiting for a first sign-in that has already happened.
+
+**An invitation is only claimed if your identity provider says the address is verified, and there is no way
+to relax that.** The access token has to carry `email_verified` as true. Anything else — false, missing, or
+sent under another name — claims nothing at all, and no setting turns that off: an invitation decides what
+the server will serve, and one that could be taken by anybody able to obtain a token asserting somebody
+else's address is a way into a team. **If your invitations never activate, this is the first thing to
+check.** They sit at *pending* rather than failing, the server logs a warning each time it declines to
+claim one, and the two fixes are on your side: set `Oidc:EmailVerifiedClaim` to whatever your provider
+calls the claim if it is not `email_verified`, and make sure the provider puts it in the **access** token
+rather than only in the ID token or the userinfo response.
+
+**Ownership is sole, and handing it over is one act.** Transferring names an existing active member: they
+become owner and you become an admin, in a single transaction. Not two role changes — promoting first
+leaves the team owned twice, demoting first leaves it owned by nobody, and there is nobody with the
+authority to finish a transfer that stopped in the middle. You are demoted rather than removed, so you keep
+your vault key grants; removing you would revoke them and flag every team vault for rekey, and somebody
+handing over a team is usually staying in it.
+
+**Archiving a team is refused while it owns a vault, and that is a limit rather than a rough edge.** A team
+vault is readable *because* of membership, so archiving a team that still owned vaults would take them away
+from everybody holding a key — including you — quietly and all at once. Nothing in this product deletes a
+vault, so there is no order of operations that gets past the refusal today, and it says so with a count of
+what is in the way rather than failing vaguely. Archiving an empty team takes its memberships and its
+outstanding invitations with it, in one transaction. Its name can be changed whenever you like; its slug
+cannot, because a slug is unique only among live teams and a rename could take one an archived team is
+still holding.
+
+Four limits, stated rather than discovered:
 
 - **Removing a member is not retroactive.** It revokes their grants and flags the team's vaults for rekey,
   and blocks future reads. Everything they already pulled is on their machine. Rotate the SSH credentials
@@ -255,6 +306,12 @@ Three limits, stated rather than discovered:
   then trust silently for a host you defined. The cost is that each member approves a team host's key once
   on each of their machines. Team vaults' pins are still *listed* on the Vault screen, so you can see what
   has been trusted.
+- **LAST ACTIVE is coarse on purpose.** The server records it at most once per account per hour, so a value
+  an hour old means "recently" and not "at that moment". That is the granularity the question is really
+  asked at — whether somebody is still using this deployment — and writing it on every request would put an
+  UPDATE on the hot path of every authenticated call for a number nobody reads that closely. It is shown
+  as roughly-when rather than to the minute, because showing it to the minute would be reading a precision
+  into it that is not there.
 
 Items are filed into one vault at a time. When more than one vault is writable, the host and vault editors
 show a picker; it defaults to your personal vault and never moves on its own, because an item put in a team
@@ -286,9 +343,13 @@ screen exactly the width it was designed against.
 File transfer **is** here now, in the shape scoped storage allows: one remote pane and the queue, over
 either an SFTP host or a bucket. There is no local pane, because there is no browsable local filesystem to
 put in one — moving a file *in* from the phone needs the system document picker and is the next piece of
-work rather than a thing the screen pretends to do. What is still absent is a host editor and a keychain
+work rather than a thing the screen pretends to do. Hosts and groups can be created here — the `+` on HOSTS
-item editor, so hosts and keys are created on the desktop and sync down; pins, teams and import have no
+raises a sheet offering both — but a keychain item editor is still absent, so keys and credentials are
-phone screen either. Importing an `~/.ssh/config` has no meaning on a phone at all.
+created on the desktop and sync down; pins and import have no phone screen either. Importing an
+`~/.ssh/config` has no meaning on a phone at all. **TEAMS does have one**, behind MORE, and it is there for a reason the design could not have anticipated: an invitation is
+claimed by signing in, so somebody being told they have been put in a team is at least as likely to be
+holding a phone as sitting at a desktop, and a membership visible only on a head they have not installed
+is a membership they cannot see.
 
 **Port forwarding is not built anywhere**, and the phone's More screen says so in a paragraph rather than
 leaving a gap. The v2 design draws a whole screen for it; nothing in the SSH layer forwards anything, so
@@ -490,7 +551,10 @@ keychain plus a terminal — and the spike that gates all of it.
   append-only key log served for clients to verify against, team-owned vaults, and vault key grants
   wrapped by a client and stored opaquely by the server. `VaultAccessService` now resolves team
   membership to permissions, so a viewer may pull and may not push; the desktop client reads and syncs
-  every vault it holds a key for, and a real TEAMS screen replaces the placeholder. See
+  every vault it holds a key for, and a real TEAMS screen replaces the placeholder. A team can be renamed,
+  handed to another member, and archived once it owns no vaults; a member row carries when that account was
+  last here; and an address with no account on this deployment can be invited, joining the moment somebody
+  signs in with it. See
   [Working as a team](#working-as-a-team) for the one distinction the whole design rests on, and the limits worth
   knowing before you rely on it; the reasoning is in
   [ADR 0009](docs/adr/0009-team-access-model.md).
@@ -499,8 +563,14 @@ keychain plus a terminal — and the spike that gates all of it.
   every team vault `RekeyRequired`, and nothing acts on that flag. A rekey re-wraps every item's data key
   under a fresh vault key and can only be performed by a client that holds the current one; that is M5's
   key rotation. Until it lands the flag is what the interface reads to say a rotation is owed, which is
-  more honest than a button that only appears to do it. Ownership transfer is absent for the same kind of
+  more honest than a button that only appears to do it.
-  reason — the owner cannot be removed or demoted, because nothing can appoint a replacement.
+
+  **Ownership transfer is here, and it is one write rather than two.** The member you name becomes owner
+  and you become an admin, in a single transaction — because ownership is sole, so promoting first leaves
+  the team owned twice and demoting first leaves it owned by nobody, and there is nobody left with the
+  authority to finish a transfer that stopped in the middle. Nothing else is touched: you keep your vault
+  key grants, because removing the outgoing owner would revoke them and flag every team vault for rekey,
+  which is a much larger act than the one being asked for.
 - **M4 — hardening and ops**, packaging, self-hosting guide.
 - **M5 — multi-provider OIDC**, key rotation, per-item content keys.
 

docs/adr/0009-team-access-model.md

@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ existed since the first migration — but nothing had had to name the split.
 else. Whether the caller can read what it serves is decided by whether they hold a grant, which the
 server records, cannot produce and cannot verify.
 
-Four consequences, each of which is a place where a more reassuring design was rejected:
+Five consequences, each of which is a place where a more reassuring design was rejected:
 
 - **A member with no grant is a normal state, not an error.** `VaultSummary.WrappedVaultKey` is null
   and the vault appears in their list saying it is waiting for a key. Hiding it until a grant existed
@@ -51,14 +51,21 @@ Four consequences, each of which is a place where a more reassuring design was r
 - **Removal is named for what it does.** It revokes grants and flags the vault for rekey. It does not
   claim to reach anything already downloaded, and the interface says the remediation is rotating the
   credential — the same non-retroactive limit ADR 0001 records.
+- **Ownership is sole, so handing it over is one write and not a role change.** If membership
+  authorises, the owner's membership is the last authority in the team, and a transfer that stopped
+  halfway would leave nobody with the standing to finish it — owned twice if the promotion went first,
+  owned by nobody if the demotion did, and in either case recoverable only by an operator editing the
+  database. So `POST /teams/{id}/owner` promotes the recipient and demotes the outgoing owner to
+  **admin** in one transaction, `ChangeRoleAsync` refuses `Owner` outright, and the recipient must
+  already be an active member — handing a team to an id supplied once is the same mistake as adding
+  somebody straight to the owner role. Demoting rather than removing is the deliberate half: removing
+  them would revoke their vault key grants and flag every team vault for rekey, which is a far larger
+  act than the one being asked for, and somebody handing over a team is usually staying in it.
 
-Two things were deliberately **not** built, and both are refusals rather than omissions:
+One thing is deliberately **not** built, and it is a refusal rather than an omission:
 
 - **The rekey itself.** Only a client holding the current vault key can re-wrap every item's data key
   under a new one. The server records that a rotation is owed and the interface reports it. M5.
-- **Ownership transfer.** The owner cannot be demoted or removed, with its own problem code. Allowing
-  it without a transfer would leave a team nobody can administer, recoverable only by an operator
-  editing the database.
 
 Two smaller choices, recorded because the alternative was written down first and rejected:
 
@@ -74,11 +81,47 @@ Two smaller choices, recorded because the alternative was written down first and
   until that exists, the safe direction is the narrow one, and the cost — approving a team host's key
   once per member per machine — is stated in the README rather than hidden.
 
+### An invitation is membership decided before there is an account to hold it
+
+A membership names an account: `team_membership.user_id` is not nullable and carries a foreign key, so
+somebody who has never signed in here has nothing for that row to point at. `MembershipStatus.Invited`
+has existed since the first migration and is still never written — not as an oversight, but because a
+membership waiting for a person is the one shape this model cannot store. An invitation is therefore its
+own record, `team_invitation`, held against an **address**, and it becomes an ordinary active membership
+the moment an account with that address signs in.
+
+That extends the model rather than bending it. An invitation grants nothing readable and cannot be a
+step towards sharing, because there is no account and so no public key to wrap a vault to. It moves the
+first half of the split earlier and leaves the second half exactly where it was.
+
+Three decisions inside it belong here, because each had a more convenient alternative:
+
+- **The claim requires `email_verified` on the access token, and nothing relaxes it.** This is the whole
+  of the security boundary. Membership is authorisation, so an invitation that could be taken by anybody
+  able to obtain a token asserting somebody else's address is a way into a team — the same attack
+  `OidcOptions.AllowEmailLinking` exists to refuse, arriving by another door and deserving the same bar.
+  An unverified or absent claim claims nothing and logs a warning, which is the only signal an operator
+  gets that their provider is not sending it. There is deliberately no setting to trust an unverified
+  address: a flag that exists is a flag somebody turns on for the afternoon their provider is
+  misconfigured, and this is the one it must not be possible to turn on.
+- **Nothing is sent, and the product says so rather than implying a mail path it has not got.** There is
+  no token and no link — the row is a standing instruction, and telling the invitee to go and sign in
+  happens over a channel this server does not carry. A link nobody can deliver would be worse than none.
+  The compensation, such as it is, is real: an invitation that is not a bearer credential is one that
+  cannot be forwarded, intercepted or replayed.
+- **An address that already has an account here is accepted rather than refused.** Refusing and pointing
+  at the directory would have been tidier, and would have turned the endpoint into an oracle for which
+  addresses have accounts on this deployment, answerable by anybody willing to create a team first. Only
+  an address already belonging to a member of *this* team is refused, and that is a fact the caller can
+  already read off the members table, so naming it leaks nothing.
+
 ## Consequences
 
 The sharing graph is visible to the operator: who is in which team, which vaults exist, and who holds
 a grant are all plaintext rows. That was already true of metadata generally (`docs/crypto.md` §10)
-and is not made worse here, but it is now a graph rather than a list.
+and is not made worse here, but it is now a graph rather than a list. Invitations widen it by one
+edge — an address that has been invited is on the graph before its owner has ever been here — which is
+the same class of fact and worth naming rather than leaving to be noticed.
 
 A malicious granter can seal garbage. The recipient detects it as a tag failure and the grant's
 Ed25519 signature names who issued it — detectable and attributable, which is the most that is

docs/android-port.md

@@ -489,7 +489,8 @@ go at 360dp:
 
    The nav rail's eight destinations became four. Pins, snippets, logs, import and teams are not built here:
    import has no meaning under scoped storage, and the other four are list screens whose view models already
-   exist — they are additive rather than structural.
+   exist — they are additive rather than structural. *(Snippets, logs and teams have since been built, behind
+   MORE. Pins and import have not, and import still cannot be.)*
 
    **Superseded by v2.** A second design — *DodoSSH Android v2* — is what this head now draws, and it took
    the "additive rather than structural" claim at its word: snippets, logs, SFTP and S3 are built, over the
@@ -527,7 +528,8 @@ What is left, in the order it matters:
   source, which is the decision recorded above and the obvious next piece of work.
 - **Editors.** There is no host editor and no keychain item editor on the phone, so both are create-on-
   desktop-and-sync. That is why the v2 design's `+` buttons on HOSTS and on the keychain are not drawn.
-- **Pins, teams and import**, which v2 does not draw either.
+- **Pins and import**, which v2 does not draw either. Teams *is* drawn, behind MORE — it was the one of
+  the three whose view model needed nothing new on the phone, because none of that screen is vault content.
 - **The App Link upgrade**, unchanged from step 5.
 
 ---

docs/design-import-gaps.md

@@ -21,6 +21,13 @@ the chrome, hosts and terminals, file transfer, the vault, teams, and preference
 > over a view model that already existed, plus preferences. `ShellScreen` gained `More` and `Buckets`;
 > SFTP and S3 are one screen over one `TransfersViewModel`, differing only in which picker they offer.
 >
+> **A sixth is behind MORE that v2 never drew: TEAMS.** It is the reverse case — a shipped screen the
+> design had no slot for — and it is on the phone for a reason the design could not have anticipated,
+> because invitations did not exist when it was drawn. An invitation is claimed by *signing in*, and the
+> person being invited is at least as likely to be holding a phone as sitting at a desktop; a team the
+> server has just put somebody in, visible only on a head they may not have installed, is a membership
+> they cannot see. It runs over the same view model the desktop screen drives, like the other four.
+>
 > | v2 element | What ships instead |
 > | --- | --- |
 > | The **FORWARDING** screen: local/remote/dynamic rules, toggles, bytes transferred | **Nothing, said out loud.** `ISshConnection` offers `OpenShellAsync` and nothing else, so there is no tunnel for a rule to run through; `SyncEntityType.PortForward = 9` is still reserved and still unused. The MORE screen carries a paragraph naming the absence, for the reason the desktop keeps TEAMS in its rail. |
@@ -100,6 +107,13 @@ unused tables bought. See [Teams](#teams). What has *not* changed is the split u
 decides what it will serve, and only a client can decide who can read it — so "shared with" is two facts on
 this screen, not one.
 
+One table did have to be added, and what it shows is the limit of that reservation. An invitation names an
+**address**, and `team_membership.user_id` is not nullable and carries a foreign key, so somebody who has
+never signed in has nothing for that row to point at — which is why `MembershipStatus.Invited` has been
+reserved since the first migration and is still never written. `team_invitation` is its own table for that
+one reason. The schema was right about the shape of a team and had said nothing about the shape of joining
+one.
+
 **The client has no preferences store.** It writes exactly two files — `cache.db` and `device.key` — and the
 cache has six tables, none of them settings. Nothing on the design's TERMINAL preferences panel can be
 saved, and there is no frame on the terminal data plane that would carry a change to the renderer anyway.
@@ -289,9 +303,11 @@ and both editors. What follows is what the design drew around them.
 
 ## Teams
 
-**Built in M3.** The screen ships: a team list, a members table, the team's vaults, and the two buttons the
+**Built in M3.** The screen ships: a team list, a members table with a real last-active column, the
-whole design was really about — add a member, and share a vault key. What follows is what it still does not
+invitations standing against addresses that have no account here yet, the team's vaults, and the two buttons
-do, and one thing this document got wrong before it was built.
+the whole design was really about — add a member, and share a vault key. A team can also be renamed, handed
+to another member, and archived, the last only while it owns no vaults. What follows is what it still does
+not do, and one thing this document got wrong before it was built.
 
 **The correction.** The rows below used to describe a screen with nothing behind it, on the grounds that
 `VaultAccessService.ResolveAsync` denied every vault that was not the caller's own. That is now the one
@@ -300,6 +316,16 @@ place that changed, exactly as its remark predicted, and no migration was needed
 What the row did not anticipate is that the interesting half is not the endpoints at all. It is that
 **membership and readability are different things**, and the screen is arranged around saying so.
 
+**There are two ways into a team and they are not interchangeable.** Adding a member takes a *user id* the
+caller has already got from the directory, so that account must have signed in here at least once — and the
+ordering is deliberate rather than incidental, because whoever adds a member is usually about to wrap a
+vault key to the public key that lookup returned. Inviting takes an *address*, grants nothing readable, and
+cannot be a step towards sharing: there is no account, so there is no key to wrap to. Inviting an address
+that already belongs to a member of this team is refused and says so — that is a fact about a team the
+caller can already see. Inviting one that merely has an account somewhere on this deployment is **not**
+refused, because answering that would turn the endpoint into an oracle for which addresses have accounts,
+answerable by anybody willing to create a team first. It simply gets claimed sooner.
+
 | Design element | Layer | What ships |
 | --- | --- | --- |
 | The team itself | server | `POST/GET /api/v1/teams`, plus members, roles and team vaults. Ids are client-chosen, so a create whose response was lost is safe to repeat. |
@@ -307,17 +333,20 @@ What the row did not anticipate is that the interesting half is not the endpoint
 | Roles | contracts + server | `TeamMemberRole` on the wire, numerically pinned to `DodoSSH.Domain.TeamRole` by a test. Viewer reads, Member writes, Admin and Owner also share and administer. |
 | Members table | server | `TeamMemberSummary`, and a directory that resolves an exact email to a public key. |
 | Sharing an item | client | `VaultSession.ShareVaultAsync`: verify the recipient's key against the key log, wrap, sign, record. The server stores the wrap and the signature and can check neither. |
+| Pending invites, and withdrawing one | server | A `team_invitation` row per (team, address), listed beside the members it is about and withdrawable until it is taken up. It becomes a membership when an account with that address signs in — **and only if the access token asserts `email_verified`**, because membership is authorisation and an invitation anybody could take by naming somebody else's address is a way in. Fourteen days, because an address that is reassigned would otherwise carry a standing offer to whoever holds the job next. |
+| Ownership transfer | server | `POST /api/v1/teams/{id}/owner`, owner only. One transaction: the named member becomes owner and the outgoing owner becomes an admin. Not two role changes — ownership is sole, so promoting first leaves the team owned twice and demoting first leaves it owned by nobody. The outgoing owner is demoted rather than removed, because removing them would revoke their vault key grants and flag every team vault for rekey, which is a far larger act than the one being asked for. |
+| `LAST ACTIVE` | server | Real, and coarse on purpose. `UserAccount.LastSeenAtUtc` is now refreshed on ordinary authenticated requests, at most once per account per hour: writing it per request would put an UPDATE on the hot path of every authenticated call and start losing races on `user_account`'s own concurrency token. So the column answers "this week or not", which is the granularity the question is actually asked at, and is shown coarsely rather than to the minute. |
+| Renaming and archiving a team | server | `PUT` and `DELETE /api/v1/teams/{id}`. The slug is deliberately not renameable: it is unique only among *live* teams, so a rename could take a slug an archived team still holds and strand it. Archiving soft-deletes the team, every membership and every pending invitation in one transaction — and is refused outright while the team owns any vault. |
 
 | Design element | Layer | What it would take | What ships instead |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | `CONNECT-ONLY` role | — | Nothing that would be true. Connect is a user-interface hint, not a boundary: SSH terminates on the client, so a session needs the credential's plaintext on that machine. See ADR 0001. | Four roles, all of which are enforceable. `Connect` rides along with `Read` and is documented as a hint. |
-| `2FA ENFORCED` and the per-member 2FA column | server | No two-factor concept exists anywhere — the only hit in the whole worktree is an aside in `docs/crypto.md`. | Omitted. The member column carries what *is* known and matters: whether they have published a key a vault can be wrapped to. |
+| `2FA ENFORCED` and the per-member 2FA column | server | No two-factor concept exists anywhere — the only hit in the whole worktree is an aside in `docs/crypto.md`. | Omitted. The member columns carry what *is* known and matters: whether they have published a key a vault can be wrapped to, and when they were last here. |
-| `LAST ACTIVE` | server | `UserAccount.LastSeenAtUtc` is written at just-in-time provisioning and at enrollment and never on an ordinary authenticated request, so the column cannot answer "last active". | Omitted. |
 | Avatars | server | No picture is stored anywhere. | Omitted; the row shows a name and an address. |
-| Pending invites, resend, revoke | server | An invitation entity, a token with a lifetime, and an outbound mail path. `MembershipStatus.Invited` remains unwritten. | Adding a member resolves an address the caller types against the directory, so the account has to have signed in here once. The screen says that when the lookup finds nothing. |
+| The invitation mail, and **resend** | server | An outbound mail path: an SMTP configuration, a template, a bounce story and a deliverability problem, none of which this server has. | **Nothing is sent, and the interface says so.** An invitation is a standing instruction rather than a message — the next account to sign in with that address joins the team — so there is no token, no link, and nothing to resend. Telling somebody to sign in is done over a channel this server does not carry. A link nobody can deliver would be worse than no link. |
+| Archiving a team that owns vaults | — | Nothing that would be safe. A team vault resolves through membership, so archiving would take those vaults away from everybody holding a key, silently, including the caller — and nothing in this product deletes a vault, so there is no sequence of calls that turns the refusal into a success. | Refused, with `team-not-empty` and a count of the vaults in the way. A stated limit rather than a coming feature, for the reason the SFTP layer refuses a recursive delete: a refusal is visible and a quiet removal is not. |
 | `SSO · OIDC · okta.dodotech.dev` | server | Per-team SSO. Authentication is one global JWT scheme bound to one authority. | Omitted. |
 | A rekey after a membership change | client | Re-wrapping every item's data key under a fresh vault key, which only a client holding the current one can do. M5. | The vault is flagged `RekeyRequired` and the row says a rotation is owed. |
-| Ownership transfer | server | A confirmation flow and a rule for what happens to the outgoing owner. | The owner cannot be removed or demoted, with its own problem code rather than a bare 400. |
 
 > **The trap this document warned about is still a trap.** `GET /api/v1/meta` advertises
 > `features: ["teams"]` *unconditionally* (`MetaEndpoints.cs`). It was meaningless when nothing implemented
@@ -346,7 +375,7 @@ lists the rest as absent rather than omitting it silently.
 | `GENERAL` section | ui | There is no general setting to put in it. The theme is fixed by decision, and window size is not persisted. |
 | `KEYS & AGENT` section | client-ssh | **There is no agent, at all** — no own agent, no forwarding, no Pageant or OpenSSH-agent interop. |
 | `SYNC & VAULT` section | client-domain | Nothing here is adjustable. The auto-sync interval is a `private static readonly` with a remark arguing for its value. |
-| `SECURITY & SSO` section | server | The SSO half needs team endpoints; there is no policy for the screen to show. |
+| `SECURITY & SSO` section | server | Per-team SSO, which is a refusal rather than a pending endpoint: authentication is one global JWT scheme bound to one authority, so there is no per-team policy for this screen to show. |
 | `SHORTCUTS` section | ui | There is no keybinding infrastructure and no rebinding surface. |
 | Auto-lock after idle | client-session | An activity source, a decision about what counts as idle, and — the hard part — a policy for a shell mid-job. `LockAsync`'s own remark already argues that an unattended timeout which killed a running job would be worse than the exposure it removed. |
 | Require biometric to sign | crypto | Three separate falsehoods in one row. There is no signing service — the private key is decrypted and handed to SSH.NET whole, so there is no per-signature moment to interrupt; there are no connect-only keys; and per-use consent would need the key to live in the TPM, which is a different key hierarchy from the one in `docs/crypto.md`. |

docs/manual-checks.md

@@ -952,3 +952,146 @@ visibly disabled rather than silently inert.
 
 **Failure means:** they have been folded into the scrolling row — which is the arrangement the connection
 line existed to avoid, and the reason it could be removed at all.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 12 — Teams: the operations that span two accounts
+
+The server's own rules are covered by the endpoint suite: teams are renamed, an archive is refused while a
+vault is in the way, ownership changes hands, and every branch of the invitation claim is driven with
+tokens the test mints itself. That last freedom is exactly what puts this phase here. **A test can mint a
+token asserting anything it likes, so it can prove the server's rule and can say nothing whatever about
+whether *your* identity provider sends the claim that rule depends on** — and an invitation that never
+activates fails by sitting still, which is the failure mode nobody notices. What is left needs two real
+accounts, a real sign-in, and in two cases a clock.
+
+**Two accounts, and two profiles.** The dev realm ships `alice` and `bob`, both with verified addresses; a
+second DodoSSH profile means a second machine, a second OS user, or the same machine after signing out.
+Whichever account plays the invitee **must not have signed in to this deployment before** — most of what
+follows is about what happens the first time it does.
+
+### 12.1 An invitation becomes a membership at the invitee's first sign-in · **the one worth the most care**
+
+1. Sign in as `alice`, make a team, and open its invitations.
+2. Invite `bob@example.com` as a Member. **Nothing is sent, and nothing should look as though it was** —
+   no "invitation emailed", no link to copy, no token anywhere on the screen.
+3. **Pass:** the row appears as *pending*, carrying the address, the role and an expiry fourteen days out.
+   Bob is **not** in the members table, because he has no account here for a membership row to point at.
+4. Sign in as `bob` on the second profile and enroll.
+5. **Pass:** the team is in Bob's list the first time he looks, at Member, with nothing further pressed on
+   either side. Back on Alice's machine, refresh: the invitation reads *accepted* rather than vanishing,
+   and Bob is now in the members table.
+6. **Pass, and this is the half that is easiest to lose:** the team's vault is in Bob's list **saying it is
+   waiting for a key**, and nothing in it is readable. Have Alice press SHARE KEY and Bob sync; now it
+   opens.
+
+**Failure means:** step 5 failing with everything else passing is almost always the `email_verified` claim
+— go to 12.2 rather than reading the invitation code, because the server is doing exactly what it should.
+Step 6 opening the vault *without* Alice sharing a key would be the far more serious failure: nothing on
+the server can wrap a vault key, so an item that decrypts after a membership change alone means a key
+reached that machine by a route this architecture says does not exist.
+
+### 12.2 An unverified address claims nothing, and the log is the only place that says so
+
+In Keycloak's admin console, clear **Email verified** on the invitee *before* their first DodoSSH sign-in.
+Invite that address, then sign in as them.
+
+**Pass:** they get an account and a personal vault and no team at all. The invitation stays *pending* on
+the inviter's screen rather than turning into anything, and the API log carries a warning naming how many
+invitations it declined to claim. Now set **Email verified** back on. The claim happens on the next request
+that crosses the hourly last-seen window, so it is **not** immediate and restarting the client will not
+hurry it along — the account already exists, so there is no second first-sign-in to trigger it.
+
+**Failure means:** if the team appears while the address is unverified, the one security boundary
+invitations have is not being enforced, and anybody able to obtain a token asserting a colleague's address
+can walk into their team. Stop there. If it stays pending after verifying, the claim is not reaching the
+**access** token — check the provider's mappers, and set `Oidc:EmailVerifiedClaim` if it sends the claim
+under some other name.
+
+### 12.3 An invitation can be withdrawn until it is taken up
+
+Invite an address, then revoke it before anybody has signed in with it. Then sign in with that address.
+
+**Pass:** the row reads *revoked* and stays on the list rather than disappearing, and the sign-in produces
+an ordinary account in no team. Revoking one that has *already* been accepted answers that there was
+nothing to withdraw.
+
+**Failure means:** a revoked invitation that still lets somebody in is a removal that did not remove. An
+accepted one that could be unpicked here would be worse: it is a membership now, and removing a member
+revokes their vault key grants and flags every team vault for rekey, which is not what "revoke invitation"
+should quietly do.
+
+### 12.4 An address already in the team is refused; an address that merely has an account is not
+
+With Bob in the team, invite `bob@example.com` to it again.
+
+**Pass:** refused, with a sentence saying the address already belongs to a member and to change their role
+instead. Now make a **second** team and invite the same address there.
+
+**Pass:** accepted. Bob having an account is deliberately not a reason to refuse — it is claimed within the
+hour on his next request rather than at a sign-in, so give it that long before deciding it has not worked.
+
+**Failure means:** if the second invitation is refused because the address already has an account, this
+endpoint has become a way of asking the server which addresses have accounts on it, answerable by anybody
+willing to create a team first. See ADR 0009.
+
+### 12.5 LAST ACTIVE is a real time, and a coarse one · **needs a couple of hours**
+
+Use one account and leave the other idle for two or three hours, then read the members table.
+
+**Pass:** the account being used carries a recent time, the idle one does not move, and neither moves more
+than once an hour however much is done in it. It is shown as roughly-when, never to the minute.
+
+**Failure means:** a value that tracks every click means the hourly gate is gone and every authenticated
+request is writing to `user_account` — which carries the xmin concurrency token, so the next symptom is a
+user's own overlapping requests failing on a version that moved under them. A value frozen at enrollment
+means the refresh is not running on ordinary requests at all, which is the state that made this column
+impossible to offer honestly before.
+
+### 12.6 Ownership changes hands in one act
+
+As the owner, transfer ownership to another active member, then read both rows.
+
+**Pass:** they are Owner and you are **Admin** — not removed, not Member. Your vault key grants are intact
+and the team's vaults have not come back flagged for rekey. Then try to transfer to somebody who is not a
+member, and to yourself.
+
+**Pass:** both refused, and the message says which.
+
+**Failure means:** two owners, or none, is the state this being a single transaction exists to prevent, and
+either one leaves a team that no client can administer back into shape. If your grants were revoked or the
+vaults are now flagged for rekey, the transfer is removing the outgoing owner rather than demoting them.
+
+### 12.7 Archiving is refused while the team owns a vault
+
+With a team that owns at least one vault, try to archive it.
+
+**Pass:** refused, and the message counts the vaults in the way and says there is no way to delete a vault
+in this product. The team is still in everybody's list afterwards and its vaults still open.
+
+**Failure means:** an archive that succeeded here would have taken those vaults out of the list of
+everybody holding a key — including the person who pressed it, quietly, and with nothing in the product
+able to put them back.
+
+### 12.8 Archiving an empty team takes its memberships and its invitations with it · **needs two accounts**
+
+Make a team that owns no vaults, add the second account to it, invite a third address, and archive it.
+
+**Pass:** the team is gone from both accounts' lists. Sign in with the invited address afterwards and it
+joins nothing. A new team can be created under the archived one's slug.
+
+**Failure means:** the invited address turning up in a team nobody can see is exactly what revoking pending
+invitations inside the same transaction exists to prevent, and it would happen weeks later on a sign-in
+nobody is watching. Note that taking the freed slug is correct rather than a defect, and is also the reason
+an archived team is only restorable by an operator who checks that first.
+
+### 12.9 Renaming a team, and the slug that does not move
+
+Rename a team and change its description.
+
+**Pass:** the new name is on every screen that names the team, on both accounts after a refresh. The slug is
+unchanged and there is nowhere to change it. Nothing claims to know *when* it was renamed.
+
+**Failure means:** a rename that moved the slug could take one an archived team is still holding, and that
+archived team could then never be brought back. An "edited" timestamp anywhere on the screen is invented
+data — `team` has no updated-at column, so there is nothing behind it.

src/DodoSSH.Api/Authorization/CurrentUserContext.cs

@@ -17,6 +17,38 @@ public interface ICurrentUserContext
     Task<UserAccount> GetOrProvisionAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken);
 }
 
+/// <summary>
+/// Turns pending team invitations addressed to a verified email into memberships.
+/// </summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// <para>
+/// Declared here, beside its only caller, and implemented in <c>Features/Teams</c>. The direction is
+/// deliberate: sign-in is what an invitation waits for, so the sign-in path names the shape it needs
+/// and the teams feature supplies it — rather than <see cref="ICurrentUserContext"/>, which every
+/// endpoint in the server depends on, growing a reference into one feature's folder.
+/// </para>
+/// </remarks>
+public interface ITeamInvitationClaim
+{
+    /// <summary>
+    /// Claims every live invitation addressed to <paramref name="email"/> for this account.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <param name="user">The account signing in.</param>
+    /// <param name="email">The address the token asserted, or null if it asserted none.</param>
+    /// <param name="emailVerified">
+    /// Whether the provider marked that address verified. False refuses the claim outright and is the
+    /// whole of what stops an invitation being taken by anybody able to assert somebody else's
+    /// address.
+    /// </param>
+    /// <param name="cancellationToken">Cancellation.</param>
+    /// <returns>How many invitations became memberships.</returns>
+    Task<int> ClaimAsync(
+        UserAccount user,
+        string? email,
+        bool emailVerified,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken);
+}
+
 /// <summary>
 /// Request-scoped caller identity with just-in-time provisioning.
 /// </summary>
@@ -29,9 +61,23 @@ internal sealed class CurrentUserContext(
     IHttpContextAccessor accessor,
     DodoDbContext database,
     IOptions<Setup.OidcOptions> oidcOptions,
+    ITeamInvitationClaim invitations,
     TimeProvider clock)
     : ICurrentUserContext
 {
+    /// <summary>
+    /// How stale <see cref="UserAccount.LastSeenAtUtc"/> may get before a request refreshes it.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// An hour, and coarse on purpose in both directions. Writing it on every request would put an
+    /// UPDATE on the hot path of every authenticated call and — because <c>user_account</c> carries
+    /// the xmin concurrency token — would start losing races between a user's own overlapping
+    /// requests. Writing it never is what made the old "last active" column impossible to offer
+    /// honestly. An hour answers the question a colleague actually asks, which is "this week or not",
+    /// and it is also the window on which a pending invitation is swept for.
+    /// </remarks>
+    private static readonly TimeSpan LastSeenWindow = TimeSpan.FromHours(1);
+
     private UserAccount? cached;
 
     /// <inheritdoc />
@@ -55,14 +101,90 @@ internal sealed class CurrentUserContext(
         var options = oidcOptions.Value;
         var email = principal.FindFirstValue(options.EmailClaim);
         var displayName = principal.FindFirstValue(options.NameClaim);
+        var emailVerified = IsVerified(principal, options.EmailVerifiedClaim);
 
-        cached = await FindAsync(issuer, subject, cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false)
+        var existing = await FindAsync(issuer, subject, cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
-            ?? await ProvisionAsync(issuer, subject, email, displayName, cancellationToken)
+
+        if (existing is null)
+        {
+            cached = await ProvisionAsync(issuer, subject, email, displayName, cancellationToken)
+                .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+            // A first sign-in is exactly what an invitation is waiting for, so it is claimed at once
+            // rather than on the next hourly sweep — which would leave somebody staring at a team
+            // list that does not yet contain the team they were told they had been added to.
+            await invitations
+                .ClaimAsync(cached, email, emailVerified, cancellationToken)
                 .ConfigureAwait(false);
 
             return cached;
         }
 
+        cached = existing;
+
+        await RefreshLastSeenAsync(existing, email, emailVerified, cancellationToken)
+            .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        return cached;
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>
+    /// Records that this account is active, and sweeps for invitations it can now claim.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <para>
+    /// The two are one operation because they want the same rate. Both are housekeeping nobody is
+    /// waiting on, and doing them together costs one extra round trip per account per hour rather
+    /// than two.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// The sweep is what makes claiming recoverable rather than one-shot. A claim that failed at
+    /// provisioning — or an invitation issued in the window between an account being created and this
+    /// person next signing in — is picked up here instead of being stranded for ever.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// <c>ExecuteUpdateAsync</c> rather than the change tracker, and the predicate rather than a
+    /// read-then-write: <c>user_account</c> carries the xmin concurrency token, so two overlapping
+    /// requests from one user would each read the row, each set the timestamp, and the second would
+    /// fail on a version that had moved under it. This writes at most one row and cannot conflict.
+    /// The tracked entity is deliberately left alone — a value up to an hour stale in memory changes
+    /// nothing, and marking it modified would enlist the user row in whatever the request saves next.
+    /// </para>
+    /// </remarks>
+    private async Task RefreshLastSeenAsync(
+        UserAccount user,
+        string? email,
+        bool emailVerified,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        var now = clock.GetUtcNow();
+
+        if (user.LastSeenAtUtc is { } seen && now - seen < LastSeenWindow)
+        {
+            return;
+        }
+
+        await database.Users
+            .Where(u => u.Id == user.Id
+                && (u.LastSeenAtUtc == null || u.LastSeenAtUtc < now - LastSeenWindow))
+            .ExecuteUpdateAsync(
+                setters => setters.SetProperty(u => u.LastSeenAtUtc, now),
+                cancellationToken)
+            .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        await invitations
+            .ClaimAsync(user, email, emailVerified, cancellationToken)
+            .ConfigureAwait(false);
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// A JWT boolean arrives as the string "true", so this parses rather than compares against a
+    /// constant. Anything else — absent, "false", or a value this does not understand — is false,
+    /// because the failure that matters is treating an unverified address as verified.
+    /// </remarks>
+    private static bool IsVerified(ClaimsPrincipal principal, string claimType) =>
+        bool.TryParse(principal.FindFirstValue(claimType), out var verified) && verified;
+
     private Task<UserAccount?> FindAsync(string issuer, string subject, CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
         database.Users.SingleOrDefaultAsync(
             u => u.Issuer == issuer && u.Subject == subject && u.DeletedAtUtc == null,

src/DodoSSH.Api/Features/Teams/TeamEndpoints.cs

@@ -84,6 +84,188 @@ internal sealed class ListTeamsEndpoint(ICurrentUserContext currentUser, TeamSer
     }
 }
 
+/// <summary>Renames a team, or changes its description.</summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// Admin rather than owner-only. A rename is visible to everybody and reversible by anybody who can
+/// perform it, which is the test that separates it from archiving and from handing the team over.
+/// </remarks>
+internal sealed class UpdateTeamEndpoint(ICurrentUserContext currentUser, TeamService teams)
+    : Endpoint<UpdateTeamRequest, Results<Ok<TeamSummary>, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>>
+{
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public override void Configure()
+    {
+        // PUT, not PATCH: the body carries both fields every time, so clearing a description is
+        // sending null rather than a distinct verb, and a repeat is the same team.
+        Put("/api/v1/teams/{teamId:guid}");
+
+        Policies(Auth.AuthenticatedPolicy);
+
+        Description(b => b
+            .WithName("UpdateTeam")
+            .WithSummary("Renames a team, or changes its description.")
+            .WithTags("Teams"));
+    }
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public override async Task<Results<Ok<TeamSummary>, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>> ExecuteAsync(
+        UpdateTeamRequest req,
+        CancellationToken ct)
+    {
+        var user = await currentUser.GetOrProvisionAsync(ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
+        var teamId = Route<Guid>("teamId");
+
+        var access = await teams.ResolveAsync(user.Id, teamId, ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        if (!access.Granted)
+        {
+            return TypedResults.NotFound();
+        }
+
+        if (!access.CanAdminister)
+        {
+            return Problems.Coded(
+                StatusCodes.Status403Forbidden,
+                ProblemCodes.Forbidden,
+                "Only an admin or the owner of this team can rename it.");
+        }
+
+        try
+        {
+            return TypedResults.Ok(
+                await teams.UpdateAsync(user, access, req, ct).ConfigureAwait(false));
+        }
+        catch (TeamInvalidException exception)
+        {
+            return Problems.Coded(
+                StatusCodes.Status400BadRequest, ProblemCodes.InvalidTeam, exception.Message);
+        }
+    }
+}
+
+/// <summary>Archives a team.</summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// Owner-only, and refused while the team owns vaults. See <c>TeamService.ArchiveAsync</c> for why
+/// the refusal is the end of that road rather than a step on it.
+/// </remarks>
+internal sealed class ArchiveTeamEndpoint(ICurrentUserContext currentUser, TeamService teams)
+    : EndpointWithoutRequest<Results<NoContent, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>>
+{
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public override void Configure()
+    {
+        Delete("/api/v1/teams/{teamId:guid}");
+
+        Policies(Auth.AuthenticatedPolicy);
+
+        Description(b => b
+            .WithName("ArchiveTeam")
+            .WithSummary("Archives a team. Refused while it still owns vaults.")
+            .WithTags("Teams"));
+    }
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public override async Task<Results<NoContent, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>> ExecuteAsync(
+        CancellationToken ct)
+    {
+        var user = await currentUser.GetOrProvisionAsync(ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
+        var teamId = Route<Guid>("teamId");
+
+        var access = await teams.ResolveAsync(user.Id, teamId, ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        if (!access.Granted)
+        {
+            return TypedResults.NotFound();
+        }
+
+        // Owner, not admin. An admin the owner promoted must not be able to archive the team out
+        // from under them — that is the boundary IsOwner exists to draw. Nothing behind this
+        // re-checks it, unlike the transfer below, so this line is the whole of the guard.
+        if (!access.IsOwner)
+        {
+            return Problems.Coded(
+                StatusCodes.Status403Forbidden,
+                ProblemCodes.Forbidden,
+                "Only the owner of this team can archive it.");
+        }
+
+        try
+        {
+            await teams.ArchiveAsync(user, access.Team!, ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+            return TypedResults.NoContent();
+        }
+        catch (TeamNotEmptyException exception)
+        {
+            return Problems.Coded(
+                StatusCodes.Status409Conflict, ProblemCodes.TeamNotEmpty, exception.Message);
+        }
+    }
+}
+
+/// <summary>Hands a team's ownership to another member.</summary>
+internal sealed class TransferTeamOwnershipEndpoint(ICurrentUserContext currentUser, TeamService teams)
+    : Endpoint<TransferTeamOwnershipRequest, Results<NoContent, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>>
+{
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public override void Configure()
+    {
+        // POST to a singular sub-resource rather than PUT on the member's role, because it is not a
+        // change to one membership: two rows move together and neither is meaningful alone.
+        Post("/api/v1/teams/{teamId:guid}/owner");
+
+        Policies(Auth.AuthenticatedPolicy);
+
+        Description(b => b
+            .WithName("TransferTeamOwnership")
+            .WithSummary("Hands ownership to another member, demoting the outgoing owner to admin.")
+            .WithTags("Teams"));
+    }
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public override async Task<Results<NoContent, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>> ExecuteAsync(
+        TransferTeamOwnershipRequest req,
+        CancellationToken ct)
+    {
+        var user = await currentUser.GetOrProvisionAsync(ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
+        var teamId = Route<Guid>("teamId");
+
+        var access = await teams.ResolveAsync(user.Id, teamId, ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        if (!access.Granted)
+        {
+            return TypedResults.NotFound();
+        }
+
+        if (!access.IsOwner)
+        {
+            return Problems.Coded(
+                StatusCodes.Status403Forbidden,
+                ProblemCodes.Forbidden,
+                "Only the owner of this team can hand it over.");
+        }
+
+        try
+        {
+            await teams.TransferOwnershipAsync(user, teamId, req, ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+            // 204. The caller knows both ids — it supplied one and is the other — and a client that
+            // wants the new roles reads the members list, which is where roles live.
+            return TypedResults.NoContent();
+        }
+        catch (LastTeamOwnerException exception)
+        {
+            return Problems.Coded(
+                StatusCodes.Status409Conflict, ProblemCodes.LastTeamOwner, exception.Message);
+        }
+        catch (TeamInvalidException exception)
+        {
+            return Problems.Coded(
+                StatusCodes.Status400BadRequest, ProblemCodes.InvalidTeam, exception.Message);
+        }
+    }
+}
+
 /// <summary>Lists a team's members.</summary>
 internal sealed class ListTeamMembersEndpoint(ICurrentUserContext currentUser, TeamService teams)
     : EndpointWithoutRequest<Results<Ok<IReadOnlyList<TeamMemberSummary>>, NotFound>>
@@ -306,6 +488,173 @@ internal sealed class RemoveTeamMemberEndpoint(ICurrentUserContext currentUser,
     }
 }
 
+/// <summary>Lists a team's invitations.</summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// Readable by every member, as the members list is: whoever is about to be handed a vault key needs
+/// to see who else is on their way in. Accepted and withdrawn invitations are included so the screen
+/// can say an invitation was taken up rather than letting it vanish and read as never sent.
+/// </remarks>
+internal sealed class ListTeamInvitationsEndpoint(
+    ICurrentUserContext currentUser,
+    TeamService teams,
+    TeamInvitationService invitations)
+    : EndpointWithoutRequest<Results<Ok<IReadOnlyList<TeamInvitationSummary>>, NotFound>>
+{
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public override void Configure()
+    {
+        Get("/api/v1/teams/{teamId:guid}/invitations");
+
+        Policies(Auth.AuthenticatedPolicy);
+
+        Description(b => b
+            .WithName("ListTeamInvitations")
+            .WithSummary("Lists a team's invitations.")
+            .WithTags("Teams"));
+    }
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public override async Task<Results<Ok<IReadOnlyList<TeamInvitationSummary>>, NotFound>> ExecuteAsync(
+        CancellationToken ct)
+    {
+        var user = await currentUser.GetOrProvisionAsync(ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
+        var teamId = Route<Guid>("teamId");
+
+        var access = await teams.ResolveAsync(user.Id, teamId, ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        if (!access.Granted)
+        {
+            return TypedResults.NotFound();
+        }
+
+        return TypedResults.Ok(await invitations.ListAsync(teamId, ct).ConfigureAwait(false));
+    }
+}
+
+/// <summary>Invites an address to a team.</summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// Authenticated rather than Enrolled, and pointedly so. Every other write that ends in somebody
+/// reading a vault needs a key of the caller's own; this one does not, because an invitation grants
+/// membership and membership is not readability. Requiring enrollment here would also be requiring it
+/// of the wrong person — the invitee is the one with no key, and they have no account yet either.
+/// </remarks>
+internal sealed class CreateTeamInvitationEndpoint(
+    ICurrentUserContext currentUser,
+    TeamService teams,
+    TeamInvitationService invitations)
+    : Endpoint<CreateTeamInvitationRequest, Results<Ok<TeamInvitationSummary>, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>>
+{
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public override void Configure()
+    {
+        Post("/api/v1/teams/{teamId:guid}/invitations");
+
+        Policies(Auth.AuthenticatedPolicy);
+
+        Description(b => b
+            .WithName("CreateTeamInvitation")
+            .WithSummary("Invites an email address to a team.")
+            .WithTags("Teams"));
+    }
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public override async Task<Results<Ok<TeamInvitationSummary>, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>> ExecuteAsync(
+        CreateTeamInvitationRequest req,
+        CancellationToken ct)
+    {
+        var user = await currentUser.GetOrProvisionAsync(ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
+        var teamId = Route<Guid>("teamId");
+
+        var access = await teams.ResolveAsync(user.Id, teamId, ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        if (!access.Granted)
+        {
+            return TypedResults.NotFound();
+        }
+
+        if (!access.CanAdminister)
+        {
+            return Problems.Coded(
+                StatusCodes.Status403Forbidden,
+                ProblemCodes.Forbidden,
+                "Only an admin or the owner of this team can invite people to it.");
+        }
+
+        try
+        {
+            var invitation = await invitations
+                .CreateAsync(user, teamId, req, ct)
+                .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+            return TypedResults.Ok(invitation);
+        }
+        catch (TeamInvitationInvalidException exception)
+        {
+            return Problems.Coded(
+                StatusCodes.Status400BadRequest,
+                ProblemCodes.InvalidTeamInvitation,
+                exception.Message);
+        }
+    }
+}
+
+/// <summary>Withdraws an invitation that has not been taken up.</summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// 404 for an invitation that is not there, is not this team's, or has already been claimed — the
+/// same answer for all three, and for the reason revoking a device grant gives: a caller driving
+/// towards "that invitation will not let anybody in" can treat 404 as having arrived. A claimed one
+/// is a membership now, and removing a member is a different operation with different consequences.
+/// </remarks>
+internal sealed class RevokeTeamInvitationEndpoint(
+    ICurrentUserContext currentUser,
+    TeamService teams,
+    TeamInvitationService invitations)
+    : EndpointWithoutRequest<Results<NoContent, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>>
+{
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public override void Configure()
+    {
+        Delete("/api/v1/teams/{teamId:guid}/invitations/{invitationId:guid}");
+
+        Policies(Auth.AuthenticatedPolicy);
+
+        Description(b => b
+            .WithName("RevokeTeamInvitation")
+            .WithSummary("Withdraws an invitation that has not been taken up.")
+            .WithTags("Teams"));
+    }
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public override async Task<Results<NoContent, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>> ExecuteAsync(
+        CancellationToken ct)
+    {
+        var user = await currentUser.GetOrProvisionAsync(ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
+        var teamId = Route<Guid>("teamId");
+        var invitationId = Route<Guid>("invitationId");
+
+        var access = await teams.ResolveAsync(user.Id, teamId, ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        if (!access.Granted)
+        {
+            return TypedResults.NotFound();
+        }
+
+        if (!access.CanAdminister)
+        {
+            return Problems.Coded(
+                StatusCodes.Status403Forbidden,
+                ProblemCodes.Forbidden,
+                "Only an admin or the owner of this team can withdraw an invitation.");
+        }
+
+        var revoked = await invitations
+            .RevokeAsync(user, teamId, invitationId, ct)
+            .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        return revoked ? TypedResults.NoContent() : TypedResults.NotFound();
+    }
+}
+
 /// <summary>Creates a vault owned by a team.</summary>
 internal sealed class CreateTeamVaultEndpoint(
     ICurrentUserContext currentUser,

src/DodoSSH.Api/Features/Teams/TeamExceptions.cs

@@ -20,10 +20,28 @@ internal sealed class TeamSlugTakenException(string message) : Exception(message
 /// <summary>The change would leave a team with no owner.</summary>
 /// <remarks>
 /// Refused rather than allowed: a team with no owner has nobody who can appoint one, so the only
-/// route back would be an operator editing the database by hand.
+/// route back would be an operator editing the database by hand. The deliberate way through it is a
+/// transfer, which moves ownership and the outgoing owner's demotion together.
 /// </remarks>
 internal sealed class LastTeamOwnerException(string message) : Exception(message);
 
+/// <summary>The team still owns vaults, so it cannot be archived.</summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// Its own type because the remedy is neither fixing the request nor picking another value: archiving
+/// would hide vaults from every member including the ones holding keys to them, and nothing in this
+/// product deletes a vault, so there is no sequence of calls that turns this refusal into a success
+/// today. Saying that plainly is better than a flag that hides somebody's data.
+/// </remarks>
+internal sealed class TeamNotEmptyException(string message) : Exception(message);
+
+/// <summary>An invitation was rejected.</summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// Separate from <see cref="TeamInvalidException"/> because its commonest cause has a different
+/// remedy: an address that already has an account here should be added through the directory, which
+/// is the path that shows the caller the public key they are about to trust.
+/// </remarks>
+internal sealed class TeamInvitationInvalidException(string message) : Exception(message);
+
 /// <summary>
 /// A vault key grant was rejected.
 /// </summary>

src/DodoSSH.Api/Features/Teams/TeamInvitationService.cs

@@ -0,0 +1,488 @@
+using DodoSSH.Api.Authorization;
+using DodoSSH.Contracts;
+using DodoSSH.Domain;
+using DodoSSH.Infrastructure;
+using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore;
+using Npgsql;
+
+namespace DodoSSH.Api.Features.Teams;
+
+/// <summary>
+/// Invitations to addresses that have no account here yet, and the sign-in path that claims them.
+/// </summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// <para>
+/// <b>An invitation is a standing instruction, not a message and not a token.</b> This server has no
+/// outbound mail path, so nothing is sent and there is nothing for the invitee to present. The row
+/// says "the next account to sign in with this address joins this team as this role", and telling
+/// them to sign in is the caller's job over a channel this server does not carry. That is a smaller
+/// feature than the design drew, and it is the whole of what can be built honestly without a mail
+/// path — a link nobody can deliver would be worse than none.
+/// </para>
+/// <para>
+/// <b>Verification is the security boundary, and it is the only one.</b> Membership is authorization
+/// (ADR 0009), so an invitation decides what the server will serve. Claiming one on an address the
+/// identity provider has not marked verified would let anybody who can get a token asserting somebody
+/// else's address walk into their team — which is precisely the attack
+/// <c>OidcOptions.AllowEmailLinking</c> exists to refuse. So an unverified address claims nothing,
+/// there is no setting that relaxes it, and the refusal is logged rather than silent.
+/// </para>
+/// <para>
+/// What an invitation still cannot do is make anything readable. It creates a membership, and a
+/// membership is not a key — somebody has to wrap the vault key to them afterwards, from a machine
+/// that holds it. The split ADR 0009 describes is not weakened by this; the invitation simply moves
+/// the first half of it earlier.
+/// </para>
+/// </remarks>
+internal sealed class TeamInvitationService(
+    DodoDbContext database,
+    TimeProvider clock,
+    ILogger<TeamInvitationService> logger)
+    : ITeamInvitationClaim
+{
+    /// <summary>Longest acceptable address. Matches the column, and RFC 5321's own limit.</summary>
+    private const int MaxEmailLength = 320;
+
+    /// <summary>
+    /// How long an invitation stays claimable.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Fourteen days, and finite for a reason rather than as a default. An invitation that never
+    /// expired would be a standing offer against an address, and addresses are reassigned — a
+    /// company address handed to the next person to hold the job would let them into a team the
+    /// person who left was invited to. Fourteen days is long enough to survive a holiday and short
+    /// enough that a forgotten invitation lapses rather than waiting.
+    /// </remarks>
+    private static readonly TimeSpan Lifetime = TimeSpan.FromDays(14);
+
+    /// <summary>Lists a team's invitations, including the ones already dealt with.</summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Every member may read this, as with the members list and for the same reason: whoever is about
+    /// to be handed a vault key needs to see who else is on their way into the team. Accepted and
+    /// revoked rows are returned too, so the screen can show that an invitation was taken up rather
+    /// than having it silently vanish and read as never sent.
+    /// </remarks>
+    internal async Task<IReadOnlyList<TeamInvitationSummary>> ListAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        var invitations = await database.TeamInvitations
+            .Where(i => i.TeamId == teamId)
+            .OrderByDescending(i => i.CreatedAtUtc)
+            .ToListAsync(cancellationToken)
+            .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        var now = clock.GetUtcNow();
+
+        return [.. invitations.Select(invitation => Describe(invitation, now))];
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Invites an address to a team.</summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <para>
+    /// <b>An address that already has an account here is accepted rather than refused.</b> The obvious
+    /// alternative — refusing and pointing at the directory — would turn this endpoint into an oracle
+    /// for which addresses have accounts, answerable by anybody willing to create a team first. It
+    /// would also be answering a question the caller did not ask: they want that person in the team,
+    /// and whether the account exists yet only changes how soon it happens. An existing account picks
+    /// the invitation up on its next request, within the hour.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// Idempotent on the client-chosen id, as team and vault creation are: the same id, team and
+    /// address returns the existing invitation rather than a second one. A different address under an
+    /// id already in use is refused rather than reinterpreted.
+    /// </para>
+    /// </remarks>
+    internal async Task<TeamInvitationSummary> CreateAsync(
+        UserAccount actor,
+        Guid teamId,
+        CreateTeamInvitationRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(request);
+
+        var email = RequireEmail(request.Email);
+        var role = RequireInvitableRole(request.Role);
+
+        if (request.InvitationId == Guid.Empty)
+        {
+            throw new TeamInvitationInvalidException(
+                "An invitation id is required. Generate a UUIDv7 on the client.");
+        }
+
+        var now = clock.GetUtcNow();
+
+        var existing = await database.TeamInvitations
+            .SingleOrDefaultAsync(i => i.Id == request.InvitationId, cancellationToken)
+            .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        if (existing is not null)
+        {
+            return ResolveExisting(existing, teamId, email, now);
+        }
+
+        await RefuseIfAlreadyAMemberAsync(teamId, email, cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        var invitation = new TeamInvitation
+        {
+            Id = request.InvitationId,
+            TeamId = teamId,
+            Email = email,
+            Role = role,
+            InvitedByUserId = actor.Id,
+            CreatedAtUtc = now,
+            ExpiresAtUtc = now + Lifetime,
+        };
+
+        database.TeamInvitations.Add(invitation);
+
+        try
+        {
+            await database.SaveChangesAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
+        }
+        catch (DbUpdateException exception) when (IsUniqueViolation(exception))
+        {
+            // The partial unique index on (team, email) among live invitations. Reported as its own
+            // sentence because it is the one failure the caller could not see coming from their own
+            // input — somebody else may have invited the same person a minute earlier.
+            throw new TeamInvitationInvalidException(
+                "There is already an invitation to that address for this team. Withdraw it first if "
+                + "you want to invite them at a different role.");
+        }
+
+        TeamLog.InvitationIssued(logger, invitation.Id, teamId, role, actor.Id);
+
+        return Describe(invitation, now);
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// A retry is the same id against the same team and address. Anything else under an id already in
+    /// use is refused rather than reinterpreted: returning a differently-addressed invitation would
+    /// tell a client its invite went to somebody it did not.
+    /// </remarks>
+    private static TeamInvitationSummary ResolveExisting(
+        TeamInvitation existing,
+        Guid teamId,
+        string email,
+        DateTimeOffset now)
+    {
+        var isRetry = existing.TeamId == teamId
+            && string.Equals(existing.Email, email, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
+
+        return isRetry
+            ? Describe(existing, now)
+            : throw new TeamInvitationInvalidException(
+                "That invitation id is already in use. Generate a new UUIDv7 and retry.");
+    }
+
+    private static TeamRole RequireInvitableRole(TeamMemberRole role)
+    {
+        var domain = ToDomain(role);
+
+        return domain is TeamRole.Unspecified or TeamRole.Owner
+            ? throw new TeamInvitationInvalidException(
+                "Invite somebody as a viewer, member or admin. Ownership is sole and is handed over "
+                + "deliberately, never conferred by an address signing in.")
+            : domain;
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Withdraws an invitation that has not been taken up.</summary>
+    /// <returns>Whether there was a live invitation to withdraw.</returns>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// An invitation that has already been claimed is <em>not</em> withdrawable, and answering false
+    /// rather than unpicking it is the honest outcome: it is a membership now, and removing a member
+    /// is a different operation with different consequences — it revokes their vault key grants and
+    /// flags every team vault for rekey.
+    /// </remarks>
+    internal async Task<bool> RevokeAsync(
+        UserAccount actor,
+        Guid teamId,
+        Guid invitationId,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        var invitation = await database.TeamInvitations
+            .SingleOrDefaultAsync(
+                i => i.Id == invitationId
+                    && i.TeamId == teamId
+                    && i.AcceptedAtUtc == null
+                    && i.RevokedAtUtc == null,
+                cancellationToken)
+            .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        if (invitation is null)
+        {
+            return false;
+        }
+
+        invitation.RevokedAtUtc = clock.GetUtcNow();
+
+        await database.SaveChangesAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        TeamLog.InvitationRevoked(logger, invitation.Id, teamId, actor.Id);
+
+        return true;
+    }
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public async Task<int> ClaimAsync(
+        UserAccount user,
+        string? email,
+        bool emailVerified,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(user);
+
+        if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(email))
+        {
+            return 0;
+        }
+
+        var now = clock.GetUtcNow();
+
+        var pending = await database.TeamInvitations
+            .Where(i => i.Email == email
+                && i.AcceptedAtUtc == null
+                && i.RevokedAtUtc == null
+                && i.ExpiresAtUtc > now)
+            .ToListAsync(cancellationToken)
+            .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        if (pending.Count == 0)
+        {
+            return 0;
+        }
+
+        if (!emailVerified)
+        {
+            // Logged rather than silent, and this is the only signal an operator gets that their
+            // provider is not sending the claim. Without it, invitations would simply never work and
+            // there would be nothing anywhere saying why.
+            TeamLog.InvitationNotClaimedUnverified(logger, pending.Count, user.Id);
+            return 0;
+        }
+
+        return await ApplyAsync(user, pending, now, cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Turns each claimable invitation into an active membership.</summary>
+    private async Task<int> ApplyAsync(
+        UserAccount user,
+        List<TeamInvitation> pending,
+        DateTimeOffset now,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        var teamIds = pending.Select(i => i.TeamId).ToArray();
+
+        // Archived teams are excluded here as well as at archive time. An invitation issued moments
+        // before an archive can still be in flight, and joining a team nobody can see is worse than
+        // an invitation that quietly lapses.
+        var liveTeamIds = await database.Teams
+            .Where(t => teamIds.Contains(t.Id) && t.DeletedAtUtc == null)
+            .Select(t => t.Id)
+            .ToListAsync(cancellationToken)
+            .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        var live = liveTeamIds.ToHashSet();
+
+        var memberships = await database.TeamMemberships
+            .Where(m => teamIds.Contains(m.TeamId) && m.UserId == user.Id && m.DeletedAtUtc == null)
+            .ToListAsync(cancellationToken)
+            .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        var claimed = 0;
+
+        foreach (var invitation in pending.Where(i => live.Contains(i.TeamId)))
+        {
+            invitation.AcceptedAtUtc = now;
+            invitation.AcceptedByUserId = user.Id;
+
+            if (Join(user, invitation, memberships.Find(m => m.TeamId == invitation.TeamId), now))
+            {
+                claimed++;
+
+                TeamLog.InvitationClaimed(
+                    logger, user.Id, invitation.Id, invitation.TeamId, invitation.Role);
+            }
+        }
+
+        return await SaveClaimAsync(claimed, cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Adds or reactivates the membership an invitation asks for.</summary>
+    /// <returns>Whether the membership changed. False means they were already an active member.</returns>
+    private bool Join(
+        UserAccount user,
+        TeamInvitation invitation,
+        TeamMembership? membership,
+        DateTimeOffset now)
+    {
+        if (membership is null)
+        {
+            database.TeamMemberships.Add(new TeamMembership
+            {
+                Id = Guid.CreateVersion7(),
+                TeamId = invitation.TeamId,
+                UserId = user.Id,
+                Role = invitation.Role,
+                Status = MembershipStatus.Active,
+                InvitedByUserId = invitation.InvitedByUserId,
+                JoinedAtUtc = now,
+                CreatedAtUtc = now,
+            });
+
+            return true;
+        }
+
+        if (membership.Status == MembershipStatus.Active)
+        {
+            // Already in the team — the invitation is satisfied rather than applied. It must not
+            // change a role somebody set deliberately in the meantime, which is what re-applying an
+            // invitation issued weeks ago would silently do.
+            return false;
+        }
+
+        // Removed earlier and invited again. The row is reactivated rather than duplicated, exactly
+        // as TeamService.AddMemberAsync does, so historic audit entries stay resolvable to one
+        // membership. Their revoked key grants are not restored — those were wrapped to a generation
+        // the vault has since been flagged to leave behind.
+        membership.Role = invitation.Role;
+        membership.Status = MembershipStatus.Active;
+        membership.JoinedAtUtc = now;
+
+        return true;
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Its own SaveChanges, never folded into the caller's. <c>CurrentUserContext.ProvisionAsync</c>
+    /// catches a unique violation and re-reads the account by (issuer, subject); a claim sharing that
+    /// call would put violations from this table inside a filter written for exactly one race, and
+    /// its rethrow would stop being correct.
+    /// </remarks>
+    private async Task<int> SaveClaimAsync(int claimed, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        try
+        {
+            await database.SaveChangesAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
+        }
+        catch (DbUpdateException exception) when (IsUniqueViolation(exception))
+        {
+            // Two of this account's requests claiming at once. One wins; the other finds nothing
+            // left to do on the next sweep. Swallowed rather than surfaced because this runs inside
+            // the authorization middleware, where a throw is a 500 on a request that was otherwise
+            // fine — and because the outcome the caller wanted has happened either way.
+            foreach (var entry in database.ChangeTracker.Entries<TeamMembership>().ToList())
+            {
+                entry.State = EntityState.Detached;
+            }
+
+            return 0;
+        }
+
+        return claimed;
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Refused only for an account that is <em>already in this team</em> — a fact about a team the
+    /// caller can see, so naming it leaks nothing. Whether an address has an account at all is
+    /// deliberately not answered here; see <see cref="CreateAsync"/>.
+    /// </remarks>
+    private async Task RefuseIfAlreadyAMemberAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        string email,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        var isMember = await database.TeamMemberships
+            .Where(m => m.TeamId == teamId
+                && m.Status == MembershipStatus.Active
+                && m.DeletedAtUtc == null)
+            .Join(
+                database.Users.Where(u => u.Email == email && u.DeletedAtUtc == null),
+                m => m.UserId,
+                u => u.Id,
+                (m, u) => m.Id)
+            .AnyAsync(cancellationToken)
+            .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        if (isMember)
+        {
+            throw new TeamInvitationInvalidException(
+                "That address already belongs to a member of this team. Change their role instead.");
+        }
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Derives what has become of an invitation from its timestamps.</summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Computed rather than stored, which is why <see cref="TeamInvitationState"/> has no domain twin.
+    /// Expiry is a fact about the clock: a stored state would need a sweeper to keep it true, and an
+    /// invitation that read Pending because nothing had run yet would be a lie the interface repeats.
+    /// </remarks>
+    private static TeamInvitationSummary Describe(TeamInvitation invitation, DateTimeOffset now)
+    {
+        var state = invitation switch
+        {
+            { AcceptedAtUtc: not null } => TeamInvitationState.Accepted,
+            { RevokedAtUtc: not null } => TeamInvitationState.Revoked,
+            _ when invitation.ExpiresAtUtc <= now => TeamInvitationState.Expired,
+            _ => TeamInvitationState.Pending,
+        };
+
+        return new TeamInvitationSummary(
+            invitation.Id,
+            invitation.Email,
+            ToContract(invitation.Role),
+            state,
+            invitation.InvitedByUserId,
+            invitation.CreatedAtUtc,
+            invitation.ExpiresAtUtc,
+            invitation.AcceptedAtUtc);
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Deliberately shallow. This checks the shape the column and the claim path need — one at-sign
+    /// with something either side, no spaces, and inside the length the column holds — and nothing
+    /// more. A stricter address grammar here would reject addresses that a real identity provider
+    /// will happily assert, and the only thing that ultimately decides whether an address is that
+    /// person's is the provider marking it verified.
+    /// </remarks>
+    private static string RequireEmail(string? value)
+    {
+        var email = (value ?? string.Empty).Trim();
+
+        var at = email.IndexOf('@', StringComparison.Ordinal);
+
+        var acceptable = email.Length is > 2 and <= MaxEmailLength
+            && at > 0
+            && at == email.LastIndexOf('@')
+            && at < email.Length - 1
+            && !email.Any(char.IsWhiteSpace);
+
+        return acceptable
+            ? email
+            : throw new TeamInvitationInvalidException(
+                "That does not look like an email address. Invite the address they sign in with.");
+    }
+
+    private static TeamRole ToDomain(TeamMemberRole role) => role switch
+    {
+        TeamMemberRole.Viewer => TeamRole.Viewer,
+        TeamMemberRole.Member => TeamRole.Member,
+        TeamMemberRole.Admin => TeamRole.Admin,
+        TeamMemberRole.Owner => TeamRole.Owner,
+        _ => TeamRole.Unspecified,
+    };
+
+    private static TeamMemberRole ToContract(TeamRole role) => role switch
+    {
+        TeamRole.Viewer => TeamMemberRole.Viewer,
+        TeamRole.Member => TeamMemberRole.Member,
+        TeamRole.Admin => TeamMemberRole.Admin,
+        TeamRole.Owner => TeamMemberRole.Owner,
+        _ => TeamMemberRole.Unspecified,
+    };
+
+    private static bool IsUniqueViolation(DbUpdateException exception) =>
+        string.Equals(
+            (exception.InnerException as PostgresException)?.SqlState,
+            PostgresErrorCodes.UniqueViolation,
+            StringComparison.Ordinal);
+}

src/DodoSSH.Api/Features/Teams/TeamLog.cs

@@ -65,4 +65,80 @@ internal static partial class TeamLog
             + "Blocks future reads only; see ADR 0001.")]
     internal static partial void GrantRevoked(
         ILogger logger, Guid vaultId, Guid recipientId, Guid actorId);
+
+    [LoggerMessage(
+        EventId = 2108,
+        Level = LogLevel.Information,
+        Message = "Renamed team {TeamId}, by {ActorId}.")]
+    internal static partial void TeamUpdated(ILogger logger, Guid teamId, Guid actorId);
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Warning, and it names the member count, for the reason removal does: an archive takes a team
+    /// out of every member's list at once and only an operator can put it back.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [LoggerMessage(
+        EventId = 2109,
+        Level = LogLevel.Warning,
+        Message = "Archived team {TeamId} and its {MemberCount} membership(s), by {ActorId}. "
+            + "Recoverable only by an operator clearing deleted_at_utc.")]
+    internal static partial void TeamArchived(
+        ILogger logger, Guid teamId, Guid actorId, int memberCount);
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Warning rather than information: it is the only operation that takes administrative control of
+    /// a team away from the account that had it, and the account it is taken from is not the one
+    /// asking afterwards.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [LoggerMessage(
+        EventId = 2110,
+        Level = LogLevel.Warning,
+        Message = "Transferred ownership of team {TeamId} from {FormerOwnerId} to {NewOwnerId}. "
+            + "The former owner is now an admin.")]
+    internal static partial void OwnershipTransferred(
+        ILogger logger, Guid teamId, Guid formerOwnerId, Guid newOwnerId);
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The invitation id, never the address. TeamLog's rule is ids and outcomes only, and an email is
+    /// exactly the kind of personal detail a log aggregator would then keep for its whole retention.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [LoggerMessage(
+        EventId = 2111,
+        Level = LogLevel.Information,
+        Message = "Issued invitation {InvitationId} to team {TeamId} as {Role}, by {ActorId}.")]
+    internal static partial void InvitationIssued(
+        ILogger logger, Guid invitationId, Guid teamId, Domain.TeamRole role, Guid actorId);
+
+    [LoggerMessage(
+        EventId = 2112,
+        Level = LogLevel.Information,
+        Message = "Revoked invitation {InvitationId} to team {TeamId}, by {ActorId}.")]
+    internal static partial void InvitationRevoked(
+        ILogger logger, Guid invitationId, Guid teamId, Guid actorId);
+
+    [LoggerMessage(
+        EventId = 2113,
+        Level = LogLevel.Information,
+        Message = "User {UserId} claimed invitation {InvitationId} and joined team {TeamId} as {Role}.")]
+    internal static partial void InvitationClaimed(
+        ILogger logger, Guid userId, Guid invitationId, Guid teamId, Domain.TeamRole role);
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <para>
+    /// Warning, and the one log line an operator will need when invitations appear not to work at all.
+    /// A provider that does not assert <c>email_verified</c> leaves every invitation pending for ever
+    /// with nothing else to show for it, and this is the only place that difference is visible.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// It names the count and the account, never the address — the address is the thing being refused
+    /// as untrustworthy, and writing it to a log would be keeping a claim the server just rejected.
+    /// </para>
+    /// </remarks>
+    [LoggerMessage(
+        EventId = 2114,
+        Level = LogLevel.Warning,
+        Message = "Left {InvitationCount} invitation(s) unclaimed for user {UserId}: the access token "
+            + "does not assert that their email address is verified. Check the identity provider "
+            + "sends the email_verified claim.")]
+    internal static partial void InvitationNotClaimedUnverified(
+        ILogger logger, int invitationCount, Guid userId);
 }

src/DodoSSH.Api/Features/Teams/TeamService.cs

@@ -24,6 +24,17 @@ internal readonly record struct TeamAccess(Team? Team, TeamRole Role)
     /// </remarks>
     public bool CanAdminister => Role is TeamRole.Admin or TeamRole.Owner;
 
+    /// <summary>
+    /// Whether the caller owns this team.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Distinct from <see cref="CanAdminister"/>, and the distinction is load-bearing: an admin may
+    /// manage members and vaults, but archiving a team and handing it to somebody else are the two
+    /// things that decide whether the team continues to exist and who controls it. Gating those on
+    /// <see cref="CanAdminister"/> would let anybody the owner promoted take the team from them.
+    /// </remarks>
+    public bool IsOwner => Role is TeamRole.Owner;
+
     /// <summary>Denied access.</summary>
     public static TeamAccess Denied => new(null, TeamRole.Unspecified);
 }
@@ -156,6 +167,200 @@ internal sealed class TeamService(
         return team;
     }
 
+    /// <summary>Renames a team, or changes its description.</summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The slug is not touched and cannot be. It is unique only among live teams, so a rename could
+    /// take a slug an archived team still holds, and that archived team could then never be restored
+    /// — a rename that quietly forecloses somebody else's recovery is worse than one the product
+    /// simply does not offer. There is also nowhere to record that this happened: <c>team</c> has no
+    /// updated-at column, so nothing can show "edited" and the log line is the only trace.
+    /// </remarks>
+    /// <param name="actor">Who is renaming it.</param>
+    /// <param name="access">
+    /// The caller's resolved access. The <em>role</em> is taken from here rather than assumed, because
+    /// an admin may rename a team and telling them the response says <see cref="TeamRole.Owner"/> would
+    /// hand a client a summary claiming rights it does not have — and this is the one write on a team
+    /// that both an admin and an owner can perform.
+    /// </param>
+    /// <param name="request">The new name and description.</param>
+    /// <param name="cancellationToken">Cancellation.</param>
+    internal async Task<TeamSummary> UpdateAsync(
+        UserAccount actor,
+        TeamAccess access,
+        UpdateTeamRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        var team = access.Team
+            ?? throw new TeamInvalidException("That team is not there.");
+
+        ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(request);
+
+        team.Name = RequireText(request.Name, nameof(request.Name), MaxNameLength);
+        team.Description = OptionalText(request.Description, MaxDescriptionLength);
+
+        await database.SaveChangesAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        TeamLog.TeamUpdated(logger, team.Id, actor.Id);
+
+        var memberCount = await CountMembersAsync(team.Id, cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
+        var vaultCount = await CountVaultsAsync(team.Id, cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        return new TeamSummary(
+            team.Id, team.Name, team.Slug, team.Description,
+            ToContract(access.Role), memberCount, vaultCount, team.CreatedAtUtc);
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>
+    /// Archives a team, provided it owns no vaults.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <para>
+    /// <b>The vault check is the whole of this operation's safety and it refuses rather than
+    /// cascades.</b> Archiving a team hides it from every member's list at once, and a team vault
+    /// resolves through membership — so archiving one that still owned vaults would take those vaults
+    /// away from people who hold keys to them, silently, including the caller. Nothing in this product
+    /// deletes a vault, so there is no sequence of calls that turns this refusal into a success today.
+    /// That is stated plainly rather than worked around, for the reason the SFTP layer refuses a
+    /// recursive delete: a refusal is visible and a quiet removal is not.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// Memberships are archived with the team, in one transaction, because a live membership pointing
+    /// at an archived team is a row every membership query has to remember to exclude twice. The slug
+    /// is freed by the same write — the unique index is filtered on <c>deleted_at_utc IS NULL</c> — so
+    /// a team can be recreated under the archived one's slug, and restoring the archived one would
+    /// then collide. Only an operator can restore it, and this is the thing they have to look at
+    /// first.
+    /// </para>
+    /// </remarks>
+    internal async Task ArchiveAsync(
+        UserAccount actor,
+        Team team,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(team);
+
+        var vaultCount = await CountVaultsAsync(team.Id, cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        if (vaultCount > 0)
+        {
+            throw new TeamNotEmptyException(
+                string.Create(
+                    CultureInfo.InvariantCulture,
+                    $"This team still owns {vaultCount} vault(s), and archiving it would take them away from everybody holding a key — including you. There is no way to delete a vault in this product yet, so a team with vaults cannot be archived."));
+        }
+
+        var now = clock.GetUtcNow();
+        var strategy = database.Database.CreateExecutionStrategy();
+
+        var archived = await strategy.ExecuteAsync(async () =>
+        {
+            var transaction = await database.Database
+                .BeginTransactionAsync(cancellationToken)
+                .ConfigureAwait(false);
+            await using var _ = transaction.ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+            var memberships = await database.TeamMemberships
+                .Where(m => m.TeamId == team.Id && m.DeletedAtUtc == null)
+                .ToListAsync(cancellationToken)
+                .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+            foreach (var membership in memberships)
+            {
+                membership.Status = MembershipStatus.Revoked;
+                membership.DeletedAtUtc = now;
+            }
+
+            // Pending invitations go too. An invitation that outlived its team would become a
+            // membership of something nobody can see, on a sign-in weeks later.
+            var invitations = await database.TeamInvitations
+                .Where(i => i.TeamId == team.Id
+                    && i.AcceptedAtUtc == null
+                    && i.RevokedAtUtc == null)
+                .ToListAsync(cancellationToken)
+                .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+            foreach (var invitation in invitations)
+            {
+                invitation.RevokedAtUtc = now;
+            }
+
+            team.DeletedAtUtc = now;
+
+            await database.SaveChangesAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
+            await transaction.CommitAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+            return memberships.Count;
+        }).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        TeamLog.TeamArchived(logger, team.Id, actor.Id, archived);
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>
+    /// Hands ownership to another active member, demoting the outgoing owner to admin.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <para>
+    /// One transaction, because ownership is sole and the two writes are not separable: promoting
+    /// first leaves the team owned twice, demoting first leaves it owned by nobody, and a failure
+    /// between them leaves whichever of those the ordering chose. That is why this is not two calls
+    /// to <see cref="ChangeRoleAsync"/>, which refuses <see cref="TeamRole.Owner"/> outright.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// The recipient must already be an active member. Adding somebody and handing them the team in
+    /// one step would let an id supplied once take it, and the reason
+    /// <see cref="AddMemberAsync"/> refuses the owner role is the same one.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// The outgoing owner is demoted rather than removed. Removing them would revoke their vault key
+    /// grants and flag every team vault for rekey — a far larger act than the one asked for, and
+    /// somebody handing over a team is usually staying in it.
+    /// </para>
+    /// </remarks>
+    internal async Task TransferOwnershipAsync(
+        UserAccount actor,
+        Guid teamId,
+        TransferTeamOwnershipRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(request);
+
+        if (request.UserId == actor.Id)
+        {
+            throw new TeamInvalidException("You already own this team.");
+        }
+
+        var outgoing = await RequireMembershipAsync(teamId, actor.Id, cancellationToken)
+            .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        // Belt and braces: the endpoint already refused anybody who is not the owner. Checking again
+        // here keeps the invariant with the code that enforces it rather than one layer away.
+        if (outgoing.Role != TeamRole.Owner)
+        {
+            throw new LastTeamOwnerException("Only this team's owner can hand it over.");
+        }
+
+        var incoming = await RequireMembershipAsync(teamId, request.UserId, cancellationToken)
+            .ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        var strategy = database.Database.CreateExecutionStrategy();
+
+        await strategy.ExecuteAsync(async () =>
+        {
+            var transaction = await database.Database
+                .BeginTransactionAsync(cancellationToken)
+                .ConfigureAwait(false);
+            await using var _ = transaction.ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+            incoming.Role = TeamRole.Owner;
+            outgoing.Role = TeamRole.Admin;
+
+            await database.SaveChangesAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
+            await transaction.CommitAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
+        }).ConfigureAwait(false);
+
+        TeamLog.OwnershipTransferred(logger, teamId, actor.Id, request.UserId);
+    }
+
     /// <summary>Lists the teams the caller is an active member of.</summary>
     internal async Task<IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>> ListAsync(
         UserAccount user,
@@ -260,7 +465,8 @@ internal sealed class TeamService(
                     ToContract(m.Role),
                     ToContract(m.Status),
                     enrolledIds.Contains(m.UserId),
-                    m.JoinedAtUtc)),
+                    m.JoinedAtUtc,
+                    m.User?.LastSeenAtUtc)),
         ];
     }
 
@@ -268,8 +474,9 @@ internal sealed class TeamService(
     /// <remarks>
     /// <para>
     /// The role may not be <see cref="TeamMemberRole.Owner"/>. Ownership is sole, so granting it to
-    /// somebody else is a transfer rather than an addition — a different operation with a different
+    /// somebody else is a transfer rather than an addition — a different operation, with its own
-    /// confirmation, and not one M3 offers.
+    /// endpoint, which demotes the outgoing owner in the same transaction. Adding somebody straight
+    /// to owner would hand a team to an id typed once.
     /// </para>
     /// <para>
     /// Re-adding a removed member reactivates the original row rather than inserting a second one,
@@ -365,7 +572,8 @@ internal sealed class TeamService(
             ToContract(membership.Role),
             ToContract(membership.Status),
             isEnrolled,
-            membership.JoinedAtUtc);
+            membership.JoinedAtUtc,
+            user.LastSeenAtUtc);
     }
 
     /// <summary>Changes a member's role.</summary>
@@ -388,12 +596,15 @@ internal sealed class TeamService(
         var membership = await RequireMembershipAsync(teamId, memberId, cancellationToken)
             .ConfigureAwait(false);
 
-        // Demoting the owner is what would leave the team ownerless, and there is no transfer to
+        // Demoting the owner here would leave the team ownerless, because this operation cannot
-        // do it through yet. Refused with the code a client can act on rather than a bare 400.
+        // appoint a replacement in the same breath. Transferring can, and does both at once — so
+        // the refusal names it rather than saying the thing is impossible.
         if (membership.Role == TeamRole.Owner)
         {
             throw new LastTeamOwnerException(
-                "This team's owner cannot be demoted, because nothing can appoint a replacement yet.");
+                "This team's owner cannot be demoted on its own. Transfer ownership to another "
+                + "member instead: that hands the team over and makes the outgoing owner an admin, "
+                + "in one step, so the team is never left with nobody who can manage it.");
         }
 
         membership.Role = role;
@@ -445,8 +656,9 @@ internal sealed class TeamService(
         if (membership.Role == TeamRole.Owner)
         {
             throw new LastTeamOwnerException(
-                "This team's owner cannot be removed. Ownership transfer is not implemented, so "
+                "This team's owner cannot be removed while they own it, because that would leave the "
-                + "removing them would leave the team with nobody who can manage it.");
+                + "team with nobody who can manage it. Transfer ownership to another member first — "
+                + "the outgoing owner becomes an admin and can then be removed like anybody else.");
         }
 
         var now = clock.GetUtcNow();
@@ -580,6 +792,27 @@ internal sealed class TeamService(
             ?? throw new TeamInvalidException("That account is not an active member of this team.");
     }
 
+    /// <summary>Counts a team's active members.</summary>
+    private Task<int> CountMembersAsync(Guid teamId, CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        database.TeamMemberships.CountAsync(
+            m => m.TeamId == teamId
+                && m.Status == MembershipStatus.Active
+                && m.DeletedAtUtc == null,
+            cancellationToken);
+
+    /// <summary>Counts the vaults a team owns.</summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Filtered on <c>OwnerKind</c> as well as on the id, matching <see cref="ListAsync"/>. A vault
+    /// carrying a team id it does not belong to would otherwise be counted here and not there, and
+    /// this count is what decides whether a team may be archived.
+    /// </remarks>
+    private Task<int> CountVaultsAsync(Guid teamId, CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        database.Vaults.CountAsync(
+            v => v.TeamId == teamId
+                && v.OwnerKind == VaultOwnerKind.Team
+                && v.DeletedAtUtc == null,
+            cancellationToken);
+
     /// <remarks>
     /// A retry is the same id with the same name and slug, from the account that owns it. Anything
     /// else under an id that is already taken is refused: silently returning somebody else's team

src/DodoSSH.Api/Program.cs

@@ -36,6 +36,13 @@ builder.Services.AddScoped<DeviceService>();
 builder.Services.AddScoped<DirectoryService>();
 builder.Services.AddScoped<KeyLogService>();
 builder.Services.AddScoped<TeamService>();
+builder.Services.AddScoped<TeamInvitationService>();
+
+// Registered twice on purpose, resolving to the same scoped instance: the endpoints take the
+// concrete service, and CurrentUserContext takes only the claim it needs, so the sign-in path does
+// not gain a reference to the whole of a feature it calls one method on.
+builder.Services.AddScoped<ITeamInvitationClaim>(
+    provider => provider.GetRequiredService<TeamInvitationService>());
 builder.Services.AddScoped<VaultGrantService>();
 builder.Services.AddScoped<IIdentityBindingVerifier, IdentityBindingVerifier>();
 builder.Services.AddSingleton<ICursorKeyProvider, CursorKeyProvider>();

src/DodoSSH.Api/Setup/DodoOptions.cs

@@ -63,6 +63,27 @@ public sealed class OidcOptions
 
     /// <summary>Claim type holding the user's display name.</summary>
     public string NameClaim { get; set; } = "name";
+
+    /// <summary>
+    /// Claim type asserting that the provider has verified the user's email.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <para>
+    /// Read for exactly one purpose: deciding whether a pending team invitation addressed to that
+    /// email may be claimed. Nothing else in this server trusts the email claim for anything, and
+    /// <see cref="AllowEmailLinking"/> records why — a token from any configured provider carrying a
+    /// victim's address must not confer access to anything of theirs. An invitation is access, so it
+    /// needs the same bar.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// <b>Absence is a refusal, not a default.</b> A provider that does not send this claim leaves
+    /// every invitation pending for ever, which is visible on the teams screen and diagnosable in the
+    /// log. There is deliberately no option to trust an unverified address instead: a flag that exists
+    /// is a flag somebody turns on for the afternoon their provider is misconfigured, and this is the
+    /// one it must not be possible to turn on.
+    /// </para>
+    /// </remarks>
+    public string EmailVerifiedClaim { get; set; } = "email_verified";
 }
 
 /// <summary>Schema management.</summary>

src/DodoSSH.Api/Setup/EndpointRegistration.cs

@@ -45,10 +45,16 @@ internal static class EndpointRegistration
             typeof(SyncPushEndpoint),
             typeof(CreateTeamEndpoint),
             typeof(ListTeamsEndpoint),
+            typeof(UpdateTeamEndpoint),
+            typeof(ArchiveTeamEndpoint),
+            typeof(TransferTeamOwnershipEndpoint),
             typeof(ListTeamMembersEndpoint),
             typeof(AddTeamMemberEndpoint),
             typeof(ChangeTeamMemberRoleEndpoint),
             typeof(RemoveTeamMemberEndpoint),
+            typeof(ListTeamInvitationsEndpoint),
+            typeof(CreateTeamInvitationEndpoint),
+            typeof(RevokeTeamInvitationEndpoint),
             typeof(CreateTeamVaultEndpoint),
             typeof(ListVaultGrantsEndpoint),
             typeof(IssueVaultGrantEndpoint),

src/DodoSSH.Client.Android/Views/MoreScreen.axaml

@@ -8,10 +8,13 @@
   <!--
     Design v2 — MORE: the hub for everything the bottom bar has no room for.
 
-    Four slots and nine destinations is the arithmetic the design solves by putting five of them one tap
+    Four slots and ten destinations is the arithmetic the design solves by putting six of them one tap
     deeper. This screen is that tap. It takes the shell as its data context rather than the vault, because
     every row on it is a navigation command and nothing here reads an item.
 
+    Teams is the tenth and the design never drew it — see the row itself. The count is the design's plus
+    one rather than a rearrangement of it: nothing moved out of the bottom bar to make room.
+
     The rows are the design's list rows rather than cards: a card is one thing you act on, and a destination
     is not a thing — it is a place. Each carries a sentence saying what is behind it, because a hub whose
     entries are one word each is a menu you have to open to read.
@@ -89,6 +92,29 @@
           </Grid>
         </Button>
 
+        <!--
+          Teams, which the v2 design has no row for — it is a shipped screen the design had no slot for
+          rather than a drawn one with nothing behind it. It is on the phone because an invitation is
+          claimed by signing in, and somebody being invited is at least as likely to be holding a phone.
+
+          ◎ rather than a glyph of its own. The desktop rail already draws teams with it, and two heads
+          giving one destination two marks is how a user learns the wrong one.
+        -->
+        <Button Classes="row" Command="{Binding ShowScreenCommand}"
+                CommandParameter="{x:Static vm:ShellScreen.Team}">
+          <Grid ColumnDefinitions="Auto,*,Auto">
+            <TextBlock Grid.Column="0" Text="◎" Foreground="{StaticResource AccentText}" FontSize="14"
+                       Width="22" VerticalAlignment="Center" />
+            <StackPanel Grid.Column="1" Spacing="2" VerticalAlignment="Center">
+              <TextBlock Classes="mono" FontSize="13.5" FontWeight="SemiBold" Text="Teams" />
+              <TextBlock Classes="detail" Foreground="{StaticResource TextDim}"
+                         Text="Who shares a keychain with you, and who holds its key." />
+            </StackPanel>
+            <TextBlock Grid.Column="2" Text="›" Foreground="{StaticResource TextGhost}" FontSize="15"
+                       VerticalAlignment="Center" />
+          </Grid>
+        </Button>
+
         <Button Classes="row" Command="{Binding ShowScreenCommand}"
                 CommandParameter="{x:Static vm:ShellScreen.Preferences}">
           <Grid ColumnDefinitions="Auto,*,Auto">

src/DodoSSH.Client.Android/Views/PhoneShell.axaml

@@ -14,10 +14,11 @@
     state machine. What differs is only what each one draws.
 
     ── v2 ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
-    The desktop's eight rail destinations become four in a bottom bar, and five more live one tap deeper
+    The desktop's eight rail destinations become four in a bottom bar, and the rest live one tap deeper
-    behind MORE: snippets, SFTP, S3, logs and preferences. That is the v2 design's own arrangement, and it
+    behind MORE: snippets, SFTP, S3, logs, preferences — and teams, which v2 did not draw and which is
-    replaces the first design's four, which had nothing behind them at all. Five characters was a desktop
+    argued for on the screen itself. That is the v2 design's own arrangement, and it replaces the first
-    constraint and the phone uses words.
+    design's four, which had nothing behind them at all. Five characters was a desktop constraint and the
+    phone uses words.
 
     The order is the design's rather than the rail's. Terminal sits second, beside Hosts, because those two
     are the pair a session moves between; on the desktop the terminal is not a rail entry at all.
@@ -58,7 +59,7 @@
 
         Hidden behind MORE, and that is the design's arrangement rather than a saving. v2 gives every screen
         one header carrying that screen's own name and its own actions — a back arrow, an add, a refresh —
-        so the five hub screens draw their own and this one stands down rather than stacking a second row of
+        so the hub's screens draw their own and this one stands down rather than stacking a second row of
         chrome above theirs. It stays on the two destinations that are the product's top level, where the
         vault's name and the sync light are the most useful thing a header could say.
 
@@ -135,7 +136,7 @@
           ============ under MORE ============
 
           The hub itself takes the shell as its data context, because every row on it is a navigation
-          command; the five destinations behind it each take the view model they are about, so each one is
+          command; the destinations behind it each take the view model they are about, so each one is
           wrapped. SnippetsScreen and LogsScreen are nullable on the shell — they are rebuilt on every
           unlock and nulled on lock — and it is the collapsed wrapper that keeps a template from binding
           against nothing.
@@ -150,6 +151,15 @@
           <views:LogsScreen DataContext="{Binding LogsScreen}" />
         </Panel>
 
+        <!--
+          The sixth destination behind MORE, and the one v2 never drew — see the comment on the screen
+          itself. Wrapped like its neighbours even though Teams is not nullable: the reason for the wrapper
+          is the data context, not the null. IsTeamShowing is the shell's and Teams is not the shell.
+        -->
+        <Panel IsVisible="{Binding IsTeamShowing}">
+          <views:TeamsScreen DataContext="{Binding Teams}" />
+        </Panel>
+
         <!--
           One screen for both file destinations. SFTP and S3 differ in which picker they offer and in
           nothing else below it — the panes, the queue and the transfers are the same IRemoteFileStore
@@ -282,8 +292,9 @@
                            CommandParameter="{x:Static vm:ShellScreen.Vault}" />
 
           <!--
-            IsMoreSurface rather than IsMoreShowing: this tab stands for six screens, and a bar that went
+            IsMoreSurface rather than IsMoreShowing: this tab stands for the hub and everything behind it,
-            dark the moment you opened one of them would only ever light three of its four entries.
+            and a bar that went dark the moment you opened one of them would only ever light three of its
+            four entries.
           -->
           <views:NavButton Grid.Column="3" Label="More" Glyph="≣" IsCurrent="{Binding IsMoreSurface}"
                            Command="{Binding ShowScreenCommand}"

src/DodoSSH.Client.Android/Views/PhoneShell.axaml.cs

@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ internal sealed partial class PhoneShell : UserControl
     /// </summary>
     /// <remarks>
     /// <para>
-    /// v2 is the first arrangement here with a second level: five destinations sit behind MORE, each with
+    /// v2 is the first arrangement here with a second level: six destinations sit behind MORE, each with
     /// its own back arrow. Android's back is the same gesture as that arrow and users reach for it first,
     /// and left unhandled it does not go up — it finishes the activity. Ending the application from a log
     /// screen is not a plausible reading of "back".
@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ internal sealed partial class PhoneShell : UserControl
         switch (current.Screen)
         {
             case ShellScreen.Snippets or ShellScreen.Logs or ShellScreen.Transfers
-                or ShellScreen.Buckets or ShellScreen.Preferences:
+                or ShellScreen.Buckets or ShellScreen.Preferences or ShellScreen.Team:
                 current.ShowScreenCommand.Execute(ShellScreen.More);
                 e.Handled = true;
                 break;

src/DodoSSH.Client.Android/Views/TeamsScreen.axaml

@@ -0,0 +1,367 @@
+<UserControl xmlns="https://github.com/avaloniaui"
+             xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
+             xmlns:vm="using:DodoSSH.Client.Shell.ViewModels"
+             xmlns:views="using:DodoSSH.Client.Android.Views"
+             x:Class="DodoSSH.Client.Android.Views.TeamsScreen"
+             x:DataType="vm:TeamsViewModel"
+             Background="{StaticResource Canvas}">
+
+  <!--
+    TEAMS, under MORE — and the one screen behind that hub the v2 phone design never drew.
+
+    It is the reverse of every other entry in docs/design-import-gaps.md: a shipped screen the design had
+    no slot for, rather than a drawn screen with nothing behind it. It is on the phone because an
+    invitation is claimed by *signing in*, and the person being invited is at least as likely to be
+    holding a phone as sitting at a desktop — a team the server has just put somebody into, visible only
+    on a head they may never have installed, is a membership they cannot see.
+
+    That argument is also why the invited list is drawn here and not treated as an administrator's detail:
+    the people on it are the ones who cannot yet see the team, and the row says out loud that no mail was
+    sent.
+
+    So there is no mock-up to depart from. What this departs from instead is the desktop screen over the
+    same view model, and every difference below is a phone difference rather than a second opinion.
+
+    **The desktop's two columns are one.** A 268-pixel team list beside a members-and-vaults table does
+    not exist at 360dp, so the three lists stack in one scrolling column with the teams at the top. That
+    is the same thing HOSTS does with the desktop's sidebar and its connect column, and for the same
+    reason.
+
+    **Nothing scrolls inside anything.** The desktop caps its members and vaults lists at 240 and 200
+    pixels so the two can sit above each other in one pane. Here every list is sized to its content and
+    the screen's own ScrollViewer does all of the scrolling: a list that scrolls inside a page is a region
+    a thumb has to find the edges of, and three of them on one screen is three ways to get stuck.
+
+    ◆ **SHARE KEY is drawn and nothing that takes something away is.** That is a decision rather than a
+    subset. Wrapping a vault key is the one act on this screen a server cannot perform at all — it needs a
+    machine that already holds the key, and this phone is one — so a teams screen that could only be read
+    would leave the product's central claim undemonstrated on the head most people carry. REMOVE MEMBER,
+    WITHDRAW KEY and REVOKE INVITATION are the other half of that, and each of them acts on the first
+    press: the view model's armed-confirmation state covers archiving a team and handing one over, and
+    those three are not armed by it. The desktop guards them with a tooltip instead, which is a control a
+    touch screen has no way to show. An irreversible revocation under a thumb with its explanation missing
+    is the wrong trade, so all three stay on the desktop — where the sentence beside them is visible.
+    Archiving and hand-over are not drawn either, for a plainer reason: they decide whether a team goes on
+    existing and who controls it, which is not a thing to do while walking.
+
+    **ADD MEMBER is not drawn either**, and it is the operation this screen least needs. It is an address
+    typed into a box, a directory lookup, a role picker, and a paragraph beside it saying what adding
+    somebody did *not* do — and since invitations arrived the ordinary way into a team is one the server
+    claims at sign-in, which is what put this screen on the phone at all. Creating a team is here, because
+    a team is where those invitations are sent from and it is two short fields.
+
+    **The key-holder list under a vault is not drawn.** It is a fourth list, it belongs to the selected
+    vault rather than to the team, and the view model publishes no flag saying whether it has anything in
+    it — so a heading for it would sit over nothing whenever nobody holds a key, which is exactly the
+    empty state this head insists comes from the view model rather than from markup. What the phone can
+    answer about a vault is on the vault's own row: whether *this* machine can open it.
+
+    **↻ and `+` both, because this screen has more reason to re-read than any other.** Nothing here is
+    cached — it is all read from the server on arrival and again at the end of every command — so the one
+    thing a member cannot otherwise see is a change somebody else just made: a vault key wrapped to them
+    from a colleague's desktop, or a team they have this moment been invited into. On the desktop the
+    re-read is leaving the rail and coming back, which is one click. Here it is a trip out to MORE and
+    back, so the button earns its place. It binds to a real command rather than to ShowScreen(Team),
+    which would set Screen to the value it already holds, raise nothing and reload nothing.
+  -->
+
+  <Grid RowDefinitions="Auto,Auto,Auto,*,Auto">
+
+    <!-- ============ header ============ -->
+    <Grid Grid.Row="0" ColumnDefinitions="Auto,*,Auto,Auto" Height="56" Margin="8,0">
+      <Button Grid.Column="0" Classes="icon" Content="←"
+              Command="{Binding $parent[views:PhoneShell].((vm:MainWindowViewModel)DataContext).ShowScreenCommand}"
+              CommandParameter="{x:Static vm:ShellScreen.More}" />
+      <TextBlock Grid.Column="1" Classes="heading" Text="Teams" Margin="4,0" />
+      <Button Grid.Column="2" Classes="icon" Content="↻" Command="{Binding RefreshCommand}"
+              IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}" />
+      <Button Grid.Column="3" Classes="icon accent" Content="+" Command="{Binding NewTeamCommand}"
+              IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}" />
+    </Grid>
+
+    <!-- ============ a new team ============ -->
+    <!--
+      Above the list rather than in place of it, which is the opposite of what the host and snippet
+      editors do — and the difference is what the form is about. Those two edit a row that is on screen,
+      so a card stacked over the list hides the thing being changed. This one is about a team that does
+      not exist yet, and the teams that do are exactly the useful thing to be able to see while naming it:
+      the slug has to be unique on this server, and the near misses are right underneath.
+    -->
+    <Border Grid.Row="1" Classes="card" Margin="12,0,12,8" IsVisible="{Binding IsCreatingTeam}">
+      <StackPanel Spacing="10">
+        <TextBlock Classes="label" Text="NEW TEAM" />
+
+        <TextBox Classes="field" Text="{Binding NewTeamName}" PlaceholderText="name" />
+        <TextBox Classes="field" Text="{Binding NewTeamSlug}" PlaceholderText="slug-for-urls" />
+
+        <TextBlock Classes="body"
+                   Text="The slug is lowercase letters, digits and hyphens, and has to be unique across this server. It is fixed once the team exists — a team can be renamed and its slug cannot." />
+
+        <Grid ColumnDefinitions="*,8,*">
+          <Button Grid.Column="0" Classes="primary" Height="44" Content="CREATE"
+                  Command="{Binding CreateTeamCommand}" IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}" />
+          <Button Grid.Column="2" Classes="secondary" Height="44" Content="CANCEL"
+                  Command="{Binding CancelNewTeamCommand}" />
+        </Grid>
+      </StackPanel>
+    </Border>
+
+    <!--
+      Status, and it is the empty state as well: the view model writes "you are not in a team yet" into
+      the same property it writes an offline notice and every command's outcome into. A literal here would
+      be a second voice saying the same thing slightly differently.
+    -->
+    <TextBlock Grid.Row="2" Classes="detail" Margin="18,2,18,6" TextWrapping="Wrap"
+               Text="{Binding Status}"
+               IsVisible="{Binding Status, Converter={x:Static StringConverters.IsNotNullOrEmpty}}" />
+
+    <!-- ============ the column ============ -->
+    <ScrollViewer Grid.Row="3">
+      <StackPanel Margin="0,0,0,18">
+
+        <TextBlock Classes="section" Text="TEAMS" Margin="18,4,18,4" />
+
+        <!--
+          Rows as cards, filled when chosen, which is what HOSTS settled on in v2 and what the radius
+          ladder calls a card: one item, one rule, one thing you act on. The fill is on the item rather
+          than on a Border inside it so the rounding the theme draws for selection is the row's own.
+        -->
+        <ListBox ItemsSource="{Binding Teams}" SelectedItem="{Binding SelectedTeam}"
+                 IsVisible="{Binding HasTeams}" Background="Transparent" BorderThickness="0">
+          <ListBox.Styles>
+            <Style Selector="ListBoxItem">
+              <Setter Property="Padding" Value="0" />
+              <Setter Property="MinHeight" Value="0" />
+              <Setter Property="Margin" Value="10,1" />
+              <Setter Property="CornerRadius" Value="12" />
+            </Style>
+            <Style Selector="ListBoxItem:selected /template/ ContentPresenter">
+              <Setter Property="Background" Value="{StaticResource Active}" />
+              <Setter Property="CornerRadius" Value="12" />
+            </Style>
+          </ListBox.Styles>
+          <ListBox.ItemTemplate>
+            <DataTemplate x:DataType="vm:TeamRowViewModel">
+              <Grid ColumnDefinitions="*,Auto" MinHeight="54" Margin="14,11">
+                <StackPanel Grid.Column="0" Spacing="3" VerticalAlignment="Center">
+                  <TextBlock Classes="mono" FontSize="13.5" FontWeight="SemiBold" Text="{Binding Name}"
+                             TextTrimming="CharacterEllipsis" />
+                  <TextBlock Classes="detail" FontSize="10.5" Text="{Binding Detail}" />
+                </StackPanel>
+
+                <!-- The caller's own role in this team, which is what says why some of it is read-only. -->
+                <Border Grid.Column="1" Classes="tag outline" Margin="8,0,0,0">
+                  <TextBlock Text="{Binding Role}" />
+                </Border>
+              </Grid>
+            </DataTemplate>
+          </ListBox.ItemTemplate>
+        </ListBox>
+
+        <!-- ============ the chosen team ============ -->
+        <StackPanel IsVisible="{Binding HasSelection}">
+
+          <TextBlock Classes="section" Text="MEMBERS" Margin="18,18,18,4" />
+
+          <ListBox ItemsSource="{Binding Members}" SelectedItem="{Binding SelectedMember}"
+                   Background="Transparent" BorderThickness="0">
+            <ListBox.Styles>
+              <Style Selector="ListBoxItem">
+                <Setter Property="Padding" Value="0" />
+                <Setter Property="MinHeight" Value="0" />
+                <Setter Property="Margin" Value="10,1" />
+                <Setter Property="CornerRadius" Value="12" />
+              </Style>
+              <Style Selector="ListBoxItem:selected /template/ ContentPresenter">
+                <Setter Property="Background" Value="{StaticResource Active}" />
+                <Setter Property="CornerRadius" Value="12" />
+              </Style>
+            </ListBox.Styles>
+            <ListBox.ItemTemplate>
+              <DataTemplate x:DataType="vm:TeamMemberRowViewModel">
+                <Grid ColumnDefinitions="*,Auto" MinHeight="54" Margin="14,11">
+                  <StackPanel Grid.Column="0" Spacing="3" VerticalAlignment="Center">
+                    <TextBlock Classes="mono" FontSize="13.5" FontWeight="SemiBold" Text="{Binding Name}"
+                               TextTrimming="CharacterEllipsis" />
+                    <TextBlock Classes="detail" FontSize="10.5" Text="{Binding Email}"
+                               TextTrimming="CharacterEllipsis" />
+
+                    <!--
+                      ◆ The one fact on this row that decides whether the button at the foot of the screen
+                      can do anything: an account with no published identity key has nothing for a vault
+                      key to be wrapped to. One sentence, from the view model, painted twice rather than
+                      written twice — the warning colour is the whole of the difference, and a converter
+                      for it would hide that the two are the same string.
+
+                      The published case is quiet rather than green. Green on this head means a shell is
+                      open right now, and a published key is a durable fact about an account — borrowing
+                      the status colour for it would be the second meaning that makes the first
+                      unreadable. Only the missing key is coloured, because only it needs answering.
+                    -->
+                    <TextBlock Classes="detail" FontSize="10" TextWrapping="Wrap"
+                               Foreground="{StaticResource TextDim}" Text="{Binding KeyState}"
+                               IsVisible="{Binding Member.IsEnrolled}" />
+                    <TextBlock Classes="detail" FontSize="10" TextWrapping="Wrap"
+                               Foreground="{StaticResource WarnText}" Text="{Binding KeyState}"
+                               IsVisible="{Binding !Member.IsEnrolled}" />
+
+                    <!--
+                      A date to the day, or that they have never been here at all. The view model writes
+                      both, and neither is a guess: the server records the account's last authenticated
+                      request at most once an hour, which is what makes a day the honest unit.
+                    -->
+                    <TextBlock Classes="detail" FontSize="9.5" Foreground="{StaticResource TextFaint}"
+                               Text="{Binding LastActive}" />
+                  </StackPanel>
+
+                  <Border Grid.Column="1" Classes="tag outline" Margin="8,0,0,0">
+                    <TextBlock Text="{Binding Role}" />
+                  </Border>
+                </Grid>
+              </DataTemplate>
+            </ListBox.ItemTemplate>
+          </ListBox>
+
+          <TextBlock Classes="body" Margin="18,10,18,0"
+                     Text="Being in a team is what lets the server hand somebody this team's vaults. It is not what lets them read one: a vault key can only be wrapped by a machine that already holds it, which is what sharing below does." />
+
+          <!-- ============ ◆ who has been asked and has not arrived ============ -->
+          <!--
+            The section this screen exists for, and the one the desktop had nothing to draw until
+            invitations were built. Read-only here: withdrawing one is a control that acts on the first
+            press, which is the line drawn at the top of this file.
+
+            So these are cards rather than the flat rows above them, and the shape is the difference: a row
+            that fills when you touch it is one of several you are choosing between, and there is nothing
+            to choose here. An ItemsControl rather than a ListBox for the same reason — a list with a
+            selection nothing reads would be a control offering something it cannot do.
+
+            Gated on the view model's own count rather than left to stand over an empty list, because a
+            team with nobody outstanding is the ordinary case and a permanent empty heading would make it
+            look like a section that had failed to load.
+
+            The waiting row carries the whole mechanism in its own sentence — no mail was sent, and they
+            join when they first sign in here. That is the sentence somebody has to read, because every
+            other product's version of this word means an email is on its way.
+          -->
+          <StackPanel IsVisible="{Binding HasInvitations}">
+            <TextBlock Classes="section" Text="INVITED" Margin="18,18,18,4" />
+
+            <ItemsControl ItemsSource="{Binding Invitations}">
+              <ItemsControl.ItemTemplate>
+                <DataTemplate x:DataType="vm:TeamInvitationRowViewModel">
+                  <Border Classes="card" Margin="12,3">
+                    <Grid ColumnDefinitions="*,Auto">
+                      <StackPanel Grid.Column="0" Spacing="3" VerticalAlignment="Center">
+                        <TextBlock Classes="mono" FontSize="12.5" Text="{Binding Email}"
+                                   TextTrimming="CharacterEllipsis" />
+                        <TextBlock Classes="detail" FontSize="10" TextWrapping="Wrap"
+                                   Foreground="{StaticResource TextDim}" Text="{Binding State}"
+                                   IsVisible="{Binding !IsPending}" />
+                        <TextBlock Classes="detail" FontSize="10" TextWrapping="Wrap"
+                                   Foreground="{StaticResource WarnText}" Text="{Binding State}"
+                                   IsVisible="{Binding IsPending}" />
+                      </StackPanel>
+                      <Border Grid.Column="1" Classes="tag outline" Margin="8,0,0,0">
+                        <TextBlock Text="{Binding Role}" />
+                      </Border>
+                    </Grid>
+                  </Border>
+                </DataTemplate>
+              </ItemsControl.ItemTemplate>
+            </ItemsControl>
+          </StackPanel>
+
+          <TextBlock Classes="section" Text="VAULTS" Margin="18,18,18,4" />
+
+          <ListBox ItemsSource="{Binding Vaults}" SelectedItem="{Binding SelectedVault}"
+                   Background="Transparent" BorderThickness="0">
+            <ListBox.Styles>
+              <Style Selector="ListBoxItem">
+                <Setter Property="Padding" Value="0" />
+                <Setter Property="MinHeight" Value="0" />
+                <Setter Property="Margin" Value="10,1" />
+                <Setter Property="CornerRadius" Value="12" />
+              </Style>
+              <Style Selector="ListBoxItem:selected /template/ ContentPresenter">
+                <Setter Property="Background" Value="{StaticResource Active}" />
+                <Setter Property="CornerRadius" Value="12" />
+              </Style>
+            </ListBox.Styles>
+            <ListBox.ItemTemplate>
+              <DataTemplate x:DataType="vm:TeamVaultRowViewModel">
+                <StackPanel Spacing="3" MinHeight="54" Margin="14,11" VerticalAlignment="Center">
+                  <TextBlock Classes="mono" FontSize="13.5" FontWeight="SemiBold" Text="{Binding Name}"
+                             TextTrimming="CharacterEllipsis" />
+
+                  <!--
+                    Whether *this* phone can open it, which is a property of its keyring rather than
+                    anything the server could answer. Painted the same two ways as the member's key
+                    state above, because it is the same question asked from the other end.
+                  -->
+                  <TextBlock Classes="detail" FontSize="10.5" TextWrapping="Wrap"
+                             Foreground="{StaticResource TextDim}" Text="{Binding State}"
+                             IsVisible="{Binding IsReadable}" />
+                  <TextBlock Classes="detail" FontSize="10.5" TextWrapping="Wrap"
+                             Foreground="{StaticResource WarnText}" Text="{Binding State}"
+                             IsVisible="{Binding !IsReadable}" />
+                </StackPanel>
+              </DataTemplate>
+            </ListBox.ItemTemplate>
+          </ListBox>
+
+          <TextBlock Classes="body" Margin="18,10,18,0"
+                     Text="A vault listed here that this phone has no key to stays listed and stays shut. That is the ordinary case rather than a fault: somebody has been added to the team and nobody has wrapped the key to them yet." />
+
+        </StackPanel>
+
+      </StackPanel>
+    </ScrollViewer>
+
+    <!-- ============ ◆ giving somebody the key ============ -->
+    <!--
+      Raised over the column when both halves of the act have been chosen, as HOSTS raises its connect bar
+      and SNIPPETS its insert bar, and for the reason written there: there is no second column to put it
+      in, so it names what it will do rather than relying on a selection being visible beside the button.
+
+      Two wrappers rather than one condition. Sharing needs a member *and* a vault, and a binding cannot
+      say `SelectedMember is not null && SelectedVault is not null` without a converter that does not
+      exist — the log screen makes the same trade for the same reason. It also gets the halves in the
+      right order: choosing who comes first, and until a vault is chosen there is nothing to offer them.
+    -->
+    <Panel Grid.Row="4" IsVisible="{Binding SelectedMember, Converter={x:Static ObjectConverters.IsNotNull}}">
+      <Border IsVisible="{Binding SelectedVault, Converter={x:Static ObjectConverters.IsNotNull}}"
+              Background="{StaticResource Chrome}" BorderBrush="{StaticResource Border}"
+              BorderThickness="0,1,0,0" Padding="14,12">
+        <StackPanel Spacing="9">
+
+          <StackPanel Orientation="Horizontal" Spacing="8">
+            <TextBlock Classes="label" Text="THE KEY TO" />
+            <TextBlock Classes="mono" FontSize="11" Text="{Binding SelectedVault.Name}"
+                       TextTrimming="CharacterEllipsis" VerticalAlignment="Center" />
+          </StackPanel>
+
+          <StackPanel Orientation="Horizontal" Spacing="8">
+            <TextBlock Classes="label" Text="FOR" />
+            <TextBlock Classes="mono" FontSize="11" Text="{Binding SelectedMember.Name}"
+                       TextTrimming="CharacterEllipsis" VerticalAlignment="Center" />
+          </StackPanel>
+
+          <Button Classes="primary" Content="SHARE KEY" Command="{Binding ShareVaultCommand}"
+                  IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}" />
+
+          <!--
+            The sentence the desktop hangs off a tooltip, which a phone cannot show — so it is body text
+            under the button, where it is read before the tap rather than after it. It is not decoration:
+            the key-log check proves this server has been consistent with itself and nothing more.
+          -->
+          <TextBlock Classes="body"
+                     Text="Their published key is checked against the server's append-only key log first, and nothing is wrapped if it does not appear there unchanged. That proves the server has been consistent with itself — not that the key is the right person's. Compare the fingerprint with them over a channel this server does not carry before sharing anything that matters." />
+
+        </StackPanel>
+      </Border>
+    </Panel>
+
+  </Grid>
+
+</UserControl>

src/DodoSSH.Client.Android/Views/TeamsScreen.axaml.cs

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+using Avalonia.Controls;
+using Avalonia.Markup.Xaml;
+
+namespace DodoSSH.Client.Android.Views;
+
+/// <summary>Teams, under MORE — who is in one, and which of its vaults this phone can open.</summary>
+internal sealed partial class TeamsScreen : UserControl
+{
+    public TeamsScreen() => AvaloniaXamlLoader.Load(this);
+}

src/DodoSSH.Client.Api/DodoSshApiClient.cs

@@ -75,6 +75,27 @@ public interface ITeamApi
     /// <summary>Creates a team, with the caller as its owner.</summary>
     Task<TeamSummary> CreateTeamAsync(CreateTeamRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken);
 
+    /// <summary>Renames a team, or changes its description.</summary>
+    Task<TeamSummary> UpdateTeamAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        UpdateTeamRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken);
+
+    /// <summary>
+    /// Archives a team. Refused while it still owns vaults.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <returns>
+    /// Whether there was a team to archive. False means there was not, which a caller driving towards
+    /// "that team is gone" should treat as having arrived.
+    /// </returns>
+    Task<bool> ArchiveTeamAsync(Guid teamId, CancellationToken cancellationToken);
+
+    /// <summary>Hands ownership to another member, demoting the outgoing owner to admin.</summary>
+    Task TransferTeamOwnershipAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        TransferTeamOwnershipRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken);
+
     /// <summary>Lists a team's members.</summary>
     Task<IReadOnlyList<TeamMemberSummary>> ListTeamMembersAsync(
         Guid teamId,
@@ -102,6 +123,30 @@ public interface ITeamApi
     /// </returns>
     Task<bool> RemoveTeamMemberAsync(Guid teamId, Guid userId, CancellationToken cancellationToken);
 
+    /// <summary>Lists a team's invitations, including the ones already dealt with.</summary>
+    Task<IReadOnlyList<TeamInvitationSummary>> ListTeamInvitationsAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken);
+
+    /// <summary>Invites an email address to a team.</summary>
+    Task<TeamInvitationSummary> CreateTeamInvitationAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        CreateTeamInvitationRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken);
+
+    /// <summary>
+    /// Withdraws an invitation that has not been taken up.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <returns>
+    /// Whether there was a live invitation to withdraw. False covers one that was never there and one
+    /// already claimed — a claimed invitation is a membership now, and removing a member is a different
+    /// operation with different consequences.
+    /// </returns>
+    Task<bool> RevokeTeamInvitationAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        Guid invitationId,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken);
+
     /// <summary>Creates a vault owned by a team, with the creator's key grant.</summary>
     Task<VaultSummary> CreateTeamVaultAsync(
         Guid teamId,
@@ -341,6 +386,35 @@ public sealed class DodoSshApiClient(HttpClient http, IAccessTokenProvider token
             DodoSshJsonContext.Default.TeamSummary,
             cancellationToken);
 
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<TeamSummary> UpdateTeamAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        UpdateTeamRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        SendAsync(
+            HttpMethod.Put,
+            string.Create(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, $"{TeamsPath}/{teamId}"),
+            JsonContent.Create(request, DodoSshJsonContext.Default.UpdateTeamRequest),
+            DodoSshJsonContext.Default.TeamSummary,
+            cancellationToken);
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<bool> ArchiveTeamAsync(Guid teamId, CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        DeleteAsync(
+            string.Create(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, $"{TeamsPath}/{teamId}"),
+            cancellationToken);
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task TransferTeamOwnershipAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        TransferTeamOwnershipRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        SendNoContentAsync(
+            HttpMethod.Post,
+            string.Create(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, $"{TeamsPath}/{teamId}/owner"),
+            JsonContent.Create(request, DodoSshJsonContext.Default.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest),
+            cancellationToken);
+
     /// <inheritdoc />
     public Task<IReadOnlyList<TeamMemberSummary>> ListTeamMembersAsync(
         Guid teamId,
@@ -386,6 +460,39 @@ public sealed class DodoSshApiClient(HttpClient http, IAccessTokenProvider token
             string.Create(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, $"{TeamsPath}/{teamId}/members/{userId}"),
             cancellationToken);
 
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<IReadOnlyList<TeamInvitationSummary>> ListTeamInvitationsAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        SendAsync(
+            HttpMethod.Get,
+            string.Create(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, $"{TeamsPath}/{teamId}/invitations"),
+            null,
+            DodoSshJsonContext.Default.IReadOnlyListTeamInvitationSummary,
+            cancellationToken);
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<TeamInvitationSummary> CreateTeamInvitationAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        CreateTeamInvitationRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        SendAsync(
+            HttpMethod.Post,
+            string.Create(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, $"{TeamsPath}/{teamId}/invitations"),
+            JsonContent.Create(request, DodoSshJsonContext.Default.CreateTeamInvitationRequest),
+            DodoSshJsonContext.Default.TeamInvitationSummary,
+            cancellationToken);
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<bool> RevokeTeamInvitationAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        Guid invitationId,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        DeleteAsync(
+            string.Create(
+                CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, $"{TeamsPath}/{teamId}/invitations/{invitationId}"),
+            cancellationToken);
+
     /// <inheritdoc />
     public Task<VaultSummary> CreateTeamVaultAsync(
         Guid teamId,
@@ -507,22 +614,13 @@ public sealed class DodoSshApiClient(HttpClient http, IAccessTokenProvider token
         return await SendCoreAsync(request, typeInfo, cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
     }
 
-    /// <summary>
-    /// Sends a delete whose success carries no body.
-    /// </summary>
-    /// <returns>True for a 2xx, false for a 404; anything else throws.</returns>
-    /// <remarks>
-    /// Its own path rather than <see cref="SendAsync{T}"/> with some empty response type, because the two
-    /// disagree about what a missing body means. Everywhere else a 200 with nothing in it is a server bug
-    /// worth an exception; here it is the answer.
-    /// </remarks>
     /// <summary>
     /// Sends a request whose success carries no body.
     /// </summary>
     /// <remarks>
     /// Its own path for the reason <see cref="DeleteAsync"/> gives, minus the 404: a grant that will
-    /// not be recorded is a failure with a problem document behind it, so there is nothing here to
+    /// not be recorded, or an ownership transfer that will not happen, is a failure with a problem
-    /// translate into a return value.
+    /// document behind it, so there is nothing here to translate into a return value.
     /// </remarks>
     private async Task SendNoContentAsync(
         HttpMethod method,
@@ -547,6 +645,15 @@ public sealed class DodoSshApiClient(HttpClient http, IAccessTokenProvider token
         }
     }
 
+    /// <summary>
+    /// Sends a delete whose success carries no body.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <returns>True for a 2xx, false for a 404; anything else throws.</returns>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Its own path rather than <see cref="SendAsync{T}"/> with some empty response type, because the two
+    /// disagree about what a missing body means. Everywhere else a 200 with nothing in it is a server bug
+    /// worth an exception; here it is the answer.
+    /// </remarks>
     private async Task<bool> DeleteAsync(string path, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
     {
         using var request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Delete, path);

src/DodoSSH.Client.App/Views/TeamsScreen.axaml

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 <UserControl xmlns="https://github.com/avaloniaui"
              xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
              xmlns:vm="using:DodoSSH.Client.Shell.ViewModels"
+             xmlns:contracts="using:DodoSSH.Contracts"
              x:Class="DodoSSH.Client.App.Views.TeamsScreen"
              x:DataType="vm:TeamsViewModel">
 
@@ -13,9 +14,12 @@
     and the vaults table are side by side, an addition says out loud that it granted nothing readable yet,
     and SHARE KEY is its own button rather than a checkbox on the member row.
 
-    What the design asked for and is still not here: pending invitations (there is no outbound mail path and
+    What the design asked for and is still not here: two-factor state (no such concept exists anywhere in
-    no invitation token), two-factor state and last-active (the server records neither), and avatars (no
+    this product) and avatars (no picture is stored anywhere). Invitations and last-active are here, and
-    picture is stored anywhere). None of them is drawn with invented data.
+    both are narrower than the design drew. Nothing is sent — there is no outbound mail path and no token,
+    so an invitation is a standing instruction that the next account signing in with that address joins the
+    team, and there is consequently nothing to resend. Last-active is recorded at most once per account per
+    hour, so it is drawn coarsely rather than to the minute. None of it is drawn with invented data.
   -->
 
   <Grid ColumnDefinitions="268,*">
@@ -82,13 +86,71 @@
     <Grid Grid.Column="1" RowDefinitions="44,*,Auto">
 
       <Border Grid.Row="0" Padding="14,0" BorderBrush="{StaticResource Border}" BorderThickness="0,0,0,1">
-        <TextBlock Classes="mono" Text="{Binding SelectedTeam.Name}" FontSize="11" FontWeight="SemiBold"
+        <Grid ColumnDefinitions="*,Auto" VerticalAlignment="Center">
-                   LetterSpacing="1" Foreground="{StaticResource Text}" VerticalAlignment="Center" />
+          <TextBlock Grid.Column="0" Classes="mono" Text="{Binding SelectedTeam.Name}" FontSize="11"
+                     FontWeight="SemiBold" LetterSpacing="1" Foreground="{StaticResource Text}"
+                     VerticalAlignment="Center" />
+
+          <!--
+            The team's own operations. RENAME is an admin's; the other two are the owner's alone, and
+            that is the line the server draws as well — an admin the owner promoted must not be able
+            to archive the team or take it from them.
+          -->
+          <StackPanel Grid.Column="1" Orientation="Horizontal" Spacing="6"
+                      IsVisible="{Binding ShowsTeamActions}">
+            <Button Classes="ghost" Content="RENAME" Command="{Binding RenameTeamCommand}"
+                    IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}" IsVisible="{Binding CanAdministerSelected}" />
+            <Button Classes="ghost" Content="HAND OVER" Command="{Binding TransferOwnershipCommand}"
+                    IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}" IsVisible="{Binding OwnsSelected}"
+                    ToolTip.Tip="Hands this team to the selected member. They become the owner and you become an admin; only the new owner can hand it on again." />
+            <Button Classes="danger" Content="ARCHIVE" Command="{Binding ArchiveTeamCommand}"
+                    IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}" IsVisible="{Binding OwnsSelected}"
+                    ToolTip.Tip="Takes the team out of every member's list. Refused while it still owns any vault, and only somebody with database access can bring it back." />
+          </StackPanel>
+        </Grid>
       </Border>
 
       <ScrollViewer Grid.Row="1" IsVisible="{Binding HasSelection}">
         <StackPanel Margin="14,14" Spacing="18">
 
+          <!-- The rename form, in place, exactly as the create form on the left is. -->
+          <Border Padding="12" CornerRadius="4" BorderThickness="1"
+                  BorderBrush="{StaticResource Border}" IsVisible="{Binding IsEditingTeam}">
+            <StackPanel Spacing="8">
+              <TextBlock Classes="label" Text="RENAME TEAM" />
+              <TextBox PlaceholderText="Name" Text="{Binding EditTeamName}" />
+              <TextBox PlaceholderText="What this team is for (optional)"
+                       Text="{Binding EditTeamDescription}" />
+              <TextBlock Classes="hint" FontSize="9.5" TextWrapping="Wrap"
+                         Text="The slug does not change. It is what URLs and the server's own records use, and it is unique only among live teams — so a rename that moved it could take one an archived team is still holding." />
+              <StackPanel Orientation="Horizontal" Spacing="6">
+                <Button Classes="accent" Content="SAVE" Command="{Binding SaveTeamCommand}"
+                        IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}" />
+                <Button Classes="ghost" Content="CANCEL" Command="{Binding CancelRenameTeamCommand}" />
+              </StackPanel>
+            </StackPanel>
+          </Border>
+
+          <!--
+            The armed confirmation, drawn where the buttons that armed it were. The vault screen's
+            idiom, and for the same reason: there is no modal anywhere in this window.
+          -->
+          <Border Background="{StaticResource DangerWash}" BorderBrush="{StaticResource DangerSoft}"
+                  BorderThickness="1" CornerRadius="4" Padding="12"
+                  IsVisible="{Binding IsConfirming}">
+            <StackPanel Spacing="8">
+              <TextBlock Text="{Binding PendingAction.Question}" FontSize="12" FontWeight="Medium"
+                         Foreground="{StaticResource Text}" TextWrapping="Wrap" />
+              <TextBlock Classes="hint" FontSize="10.5" TextWrapping="Wrap"
+                         Text="{Binding PendingAction.Consequence}" />
+              <StackPanel Orientation="Horizontal" Spacing="6">
+                <Button Classes="danger" Content="CONFIRM" Command="{Binding ConfirmActionCommand}"
+                        IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}" />
+                <Button Classes="ghost" Content="CANCEL" Command="{Binding CancelActionCommand}" />
+              </StackPanel>
+            </StackPanel>
+          </Border>
+
           <!-- Members -->
 
           <StackPanel Spacing="8">
@@ -98,14 +160,17 @@
                      Background="Transparent" BorderThickness="0" MaxHeight="240">
               <ListBox.ItemTemplate>
                 <DataTemplate x:DataType="vm:TeamMemberRowViewModel">
-                  <Grid ColumnDefinitions="*,150,Auto" Margin="0,3">
+                  <Grid ColumnDefinitions="*,168,Auto" Margin="0,3">
                     <StackPanel Grid.Column="0" Spacing="2">
                       <TextBlock Text="{Binding Name}" FontSize="12" FontWeight="Medium"
                                  Foreground="{StaticResource Text}" TextTrimming="CharacterEllipsis" />
                       <TextBlock Classes="hint" FontSize="10" Text="{Binding Email}" />
                     </StackPanel>
-                    <TextBlock Grid.Column="1" Classes="hint" FontSize="10" VerticalAlignment="Center"
+                    <StackPanel Grid.Column="1" Spacing="2" VerticalAlignment="Center">
-                               Text="{Binding KeyState}" TextWrapping="Wrap" />
+                      <TextBlock Classes="hint" FontSize="10" Text="{Binding KeyState}"
+                                 TextWrapping="Wrap" />
+                      <TextBlock Classes="hint" FontSize="9.5" Text="{Binding LastActive}" />
+                    </StackPanel>
                     <TextBlock Grid.Column="2" Classes="mono" Text="{Binding Role}" FontSize="9"
                                Foreground="{StaticResource TextFaint}" VerticalAlignment="Center"
                                Margin="10,0,0,0" />
@@ -114,21 +179,96 @@
               </ListBox.ItemTemplate>
             </ListBox>
 
+            <!--
+              Buttons and a command rather than a selector bound to the role, which is the choice the
+              key editor and the category rail already make and for the reason they record: a selector
+              moves its own highlight before anything can refuse, so it can end up showing a role
+              nobody was given. OWNER is absent because it is not a role that can be assigned —
+              handing the team over is its own act, with its own confirmation.
+            -->
+            <StackPanel Spacing="6" IsVisible="{Binding CanAdministerSelected}">
+              <TextBlock Classes="label" Text="SET THE SELECTED MEMBER'S ROLE" />
+              <StackPanel Orientation="Horizontal" Spacing="6">
+                <Button Classes="flat choice" Content="VIEWER" Command="{Binding ChangeRoleCommand}"
+                        CommandParameter="{x:Static contracts:TeamMemberRole.Viewer}"
+                        IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}"
+                        ToolTip.Tip="May pull this team's vaults and may not push. It does not withdraw a vault key they already hold." />
+                <Button Classes="flat choice" Content="MEMBER" Command="{Binding ChangeRoleCommand}"
+                        CommandParameter="{x:Static contracts:TeamMemberRole.Member}"
+                        IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}"
+                        ToolTip.Tip="May read and change this team's vaults." />
+                <Button Classes="flat choice" Content="ADMIN" Command="{Binding ChangeRoleCommand}"
+                        CommandParameter="{x:Static contracts:TeamMemberRole.Admin}"
+                        IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}"
+                        ToolTip.Tip="May also manage members, create vaults and share vault keys." />
+              </StackPanel>
+            </StackPanel>
+
             <Grid ColumnDefinitions="*,Auto,Auto" IsVisible="{Binding CanAdministerSelected}">
               <TextBox Grid.Column="0" PlaceholderText="colleague@example.com" Text="{Binding InviteEmail}"
                        Margin="0,0,6,0" />
               <Button Grid.Column="1" Classes="accent" Content="ADD MEMBER"
-                      Command="{Binding AddMemberCommand}" IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}" />
+                      Command="{Binding AddMemberCommand}" IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}"
+                      ToolTip.Tip="Adds the account with this address, or invites the address if there is no account here yet. Nothing is sent either way — tell them yourself." />
               <Button Grid.Column="2" Classes="danger" Content="REMOVE" Margin="6,0,0,0"
                       Command="{Binding RemoveMemberCommand}" IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}"
                       ToolTip.Tip="Removes the selected member and withdraws every vault key they hold from this team. It blocks future reads only — anything already on their machine stays there, so rotate the credentials that matter." />
             </Grid>
 
+            <StackPanel Spacing="4" IsVisible="{Binding CanAdministerSelected}">
+              <TextBlock Classes="label" Text="THEY ARRIVE AS" />
+              <StackPanel Orientation="Horizontal" Spacing="6">
+                <Button Classes="flat choice" Content="VIEWER" Classes.active="{Binding AddsAsViewer}"
+                        Command="{Binding ChooseNewMemberRoleCommand}"
+                        CommandParameter="{x:Static contracts:TeamMemberRole.Viewer}" />
+                <Button Classes="flat choice" Content="MEMBER" Classes.active="{Binding AddsAsMember}"
+                        Command="{Binding ChooseNewMemberRoleCommand}"
+                        CommandParameter="{x:Static contracts:TeamMemberRole.Member}" />
+                <Button Classes="flat choice" Content="ADMIN" Classes.active="{Binding AddsAsAdmin}"
+                        Command="{Binding ChooseNewMemberRoleCommand}"
+                        CommandParameter="{x:Static contracts:TeamMemberRole.Admin}" />
+              </StackPanel>
+            </StackPanel>
+
             <TextBlock Classes="hint" FontSize="9.5" TextWrapping="Wrap"
                        IsVisible="{Binding CanAdministerSelected}"
                        Text="Adding somebody lets the server serve them this team's vaults. It does not let them read one: a vault key can only be wrapped by a machine that already holds it, which is what SHARE KEY below does." />
           </StackPanel>
 
+          <!--
+            Invitations, drawn only when there are any. An empty INVITED heading on every team would be
+            a permanent reminder of a feature most teams never use.
+          -->
+          <StackPanel Spacing="8" IsVisible="{Binding HasInvitations}">
+            <Border Height="1" Background="{StaticResource BorderSubtle}" />
+
+            <TextBlock Classes="label" Text="INVITED" />
+
+            <ListBox ItemsSource="{Binding Invitations}" SelectedItem="{Binding SelectedInvitation}"
+                     Background="Transparent" BorderThickness="0" MaxHeight="160">
+              <ListBox.ItemTemplate>
+                <DataTemplate x:DataType="vm:TeamInvitationRowViewModel">
+                  <Grid ColumnDefinitions="*,Auto" Margin="0,3">
+                    <StackPanel Grid.Column="0" Spacing="2">
+                      <TextBlock Text="{Binding Email}" FontSize="12" FontWeight="Medium"
+                                 Foreground="{StaticResource Text}" TextTrimming="CharacterEllipsis" />
+                      <TextBlock Classes="hint" FontSize="10" Text="{Binding State}"
+                                 TextWrapping="Wrap" />
+                    </StackPanel>
+                    <TextBlock Grid.Column="1" Classes="mono" Text="{Binding Role}" FontSize="9"
+                               Foreground="{StaticResource TextFaint}" VerticalAlignment="Center"
+                               Margin="10,0,0,0" />
+                  </Grid>
+                </DataTemplate>
+              </ListBox.ItemTemplate>
+            </ListBox>
+
+            <Button Classes="danger" Content="WITHDRAW INVITATION" HorizontalAlignment="Left"
+                    Command="{Binding RevokeInvitationCommand}" IsEnabled="{Binding !IsBusy}"
+                    IsVisible="{Binding CanAdministerSelected}"
+                    ToolTip.Tip="Signing in with that address will no longer put them in this team. An invitation already taken up is a membership — remove the member instead." />
+          </StackPanel>
+
           <Border Height="1" Background="{StaticResource BorderSubtle}" />
 
           <!-- Vaults -->
@@ -167,6 +307,34 @@
                       ToolTip.Tip="Withdraws the selected member's key to the selected vault. Blocks future reads only." />
             </StackPanel>
 
+            <!--
+              Who can open the selected vault — the design's "shared with" avatars, as names and a
+              state. Under the vault rather than beside the member, because a grant is per vault: a
+              count on a member row would imply per-item sharing, which is M5 and does not exist.
+              Withdrawn and stale grants stay listed and say which they are, because a list that
+              quietly dropped them would show a departed colleague as merely absent rather than as
+              somebody whose key was taken away. The dot is Live and means exactly what it says: this
+              person can open this vault right now.
+            -->
+            <TextBlock Classes="label" Text="KEY HOLDERS" />
+
+            <ListBox ItemsSource="{Binding Grants}" Background="Transparent" BorderThickness="0"
+                     MaxHeight="150">
+              <ListBox.ItemTemplate>
+                <DataTemplate x:DataType="vm:TeamGrantRowViewModel">
+                  <Grid ColumnDefinitions="10,*" Margin="0,3">
+                    <Ellipse Grid.Column="0" Width="6" Height="6" VerticalAlignment="Center"
+                             IsVisible="{Binding IsLive}" Fill="{StaticResource Live}" />
+                    <StackPanel Grid.Column="1" Spacing="2" Margin="6,0,0,0">
+                      <TextBlock Text="{Binding Name}" FontSize="12" FontWeight="Medium"
+                                 Foreground="{StaticResource Text}" TextTrimming="CharacterEllipsis" />
+                      <TextBlock Classes="hint" FontSize="10" Text="{Binding State}" />
+                    </StackPanel>
+                  </Grid>
+                </DataTemplate>
+              </ListBox.ItemTemplate>
+            </ListBox>
+
             <TextBlock Classes="hint" FontSize="9.5" TextWrapping="Wrap"
                        Text="Sharing verifies the recipient's key against the key log, which proves this server has been consistent with itself — not that the key is the right person's. Compare the fingerprint with them over a channel this server does not carry before sharing anything that matters." />
           </StackPanel>

src/DodoSSH.Client.Shell/ViewModels/MainWindowViewModel.cs

@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ internal enum ShellScreen
     /// <summary>Everything in the vault that is not a host.</summary>
     Vault = 2,
 
-    /// <summary>Shared vaults and the people in them. Nothing implements it yet.</summary>
+    /// <summary>Shared vaults and the people in them. Both heads draw it.</summary>
     Team = 3,
 
     /// <summary>Preferences.</summary>
@@ -777,14 +777,18 @@ internal sealed partial class MainWindowViewModel : ObservableObject, IAsyncDisp
     /// The hub and everything behind it, because a bottom bar that went dark the moment you opened one of
     /// its destinations would be a bar that only ever lights three of its four entries. This is the one
     /// place where "which tab" and "which screen" are deliberately not the same question — the other three
-    /// tabs are each exactly one screen, and this one is six.
+    /// tabs are each exactly one screen, and this one is seven.
     ///
     /// Preferences is in the list because the phone reaches it through the hub. The desktop reaches it from
-    /// the rail and never asks this.
+    /// the rail and never asks this. <see cref="ShellScreen.Team"/> is in it for the same reason and no
+    /// other: the desktop has a rail entry for teams and the phone reaches them through MORE, so a screen
+    /// missing here is one whose arrival darkens the tab that led to it and brings the shell's own header
+    /// back over a screen that already has one.
     /// </remarks>
     internal bool IsMoreSurface =>
         IsShowingPages && Screen is ShellScreen.More or ShellScreen.Snippets or ShellScreen.Logs
-            or ShellScreen.Transfers or ShellScreen.Buckets or ShellScreen.Preferences;
+            or ShellScreen.Transfers or ShellScreen.Buckets or ShellScreen.Preferences
+            or ShellScreen.Team;
 
     /// <summary>
     /// Whether the terminal's WebView may be on screen at this instant.

src/DodoSSH.Client.Shell/ViewModels/TeamsViewModel.cs

@@ -50,18 +50,119 @@ internal sealed record TeamMemberRowViewModel(TeamMemberSummary Member, bool IsS
     /// What the account can be given, in one phrase.
     /// </summary>
     /// <remarks>
-    /// Not a two-factor column, not a last-active column. The server records neither: there is no
+    /// Not a two-factor column: there is no second-factor concept anywhere in the server. What is
-    /// second-factor concept anywhere in it, and <c>LastSeenAtUtc</c> is written at provisioning and at
+    /// true and worth a column is whether a vault key can be wrapped to them at all.
-    /// enrollment and nowhere else, so a column headed "last active" would be reporting something else.
-    /// What is true and worth a column is whether a vault key can be wrapped to them at all.
     /// </remarks>
     internal string KeyState => Member.IsEnrolled
         ? "key published"
         : "no key yet — cannot be given a vault";
 
+    /// <summary>
+    /// The day they were last here, or that they never have been.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// A date to the day, not a time and not a "3 hours ago". Two reasons, and they point the same
+    /// way: the server writes this at most once an hour, so anything finer would be reading a
+    /// precision into it that is not there — and a relative phrase would have to be recomputed against
+    /// a clock, which this row does not have and which the pinned-host list already decided against by
+    /// rendering its own dates the same way.
+    /// </remarks>
+    internal string LastActive => Member.LastActiveAt is { } seen
+        ? "last here " + seen.ToLocalTime().ToString("d MMM yyyy", CultureInfo.CurrentCulture)
+        : "never signed in";
+
     internal bool CanBeRemoved => Member.Role != TeamMemberRole.Owner;
+
+    /// <summary>Whether this member's role can be changed at all.</summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The owner's cannot, and not for want of an endpoint: ownership is sole, so demoting them is
+    /// only meaningful as half of a transfer. That is its own command.
+    /// </remarks>
+    internal bool CanChangeRole => Member.Role != TeamMemberRole.Owner;
 }
 
+/// <summary>One vault key grant, as a row under the vault it opens.</summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// This is the "shared with" list the design drew as a row of avatars. It is drawn as names and a
+/// state instead, and it is a list rather than a count for a reason worth keeping: a grant is per
+/// vault, so a number on an item row would imply per-item sharing, which does not exist.
+/// </remarks>
+internal sealed record TeamGrantRowViewModel(VaultGrantSummary Grant, uint VaultGeneration)
+{
+    internal Guid UserId => Grant.RecipientUserId;
+
+    internal string Name => Grant.DisplayName ?? Grant.Email ?? Grant.RecipientUserId.ToString();
+
+    /// <summary>
+    /// What this grant is worth, in one phrase.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Staleness is decided by comparing generations rather than by reading
+    /// <see cref="VaultGrantState"/> alone, which is what <c>VaultGrantsResponse.KeyGeneration</c>
+    /// exists for: a grant can be Active and still open nothing, because it was wrapped to a key the
+    /// vault has since moved past.
+    /// </remarks>
+    internal string State => Grant.State switch
+    {
+        VaultGrantState.Revoked => "withdrawn — blocks future reads only",
+        VaultGrantState.AwaitingRewrap => "needs wrapping again — their key changed",
+        _ when Grant.KeyGeneration < VaultGeneration => "stale — wrapped to an older key, opens nothing",
+        _ => "holds a key",
+    };
+
+    /// <summary>Whether this row still represents somebody who can read the vault.</summary>
+    internal bool IsLive =>
+        Grant.State == VaultGrantState.Active && Grant.KeyGeneration >= VaultGeneration;
+}
+
+/// <summary>One invitation, as a row under the members it will join.</summary>
+internal sealed record TeamInvitationRowViewModel(TeamInvitationSummary Invitation)
+{
+    internal Guid InvitationId => Invitation.InvitationId;
+
+    internal string Email => Invitation.Email;
+
+    internal string Role => Invitation.Role.ToString().ToUpperInvariant();
+
+    /// <summary>
+    /// What has become of it, said as a sentence rather than a status word.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The pending case has to carry the whole mechanism, because there is nothing else on this screen
+    /// that could: nothing was sent, so somebody reading "invited" would reasonably wait for an email
+    /// that is never coming.
+    /// </remarks>
+    internal string State => Invitation.State switch
+    {
+        TeamInvitationState.Accepted => "joined",
+        TeamInvitationState.Revoked => "withdrawn",
+        TeamInvitationState.Expired => "expired — invite them again if they still need it",
+        _ => "waiting — they join when they first sign in here. Nothing was sent; tell them yourself.",
+    };
+
+    /// <summary>Whether this invitation can still be withdrawn.</summary>
+    internal bool IsPending => Invitation.State == TeamInvitationState.Pending;
+}
+
+/// <summary>
+/// A destructive team operation, armed and waiting to be confirmed.
+/// </summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// The armed-state idiom the vault screen uses, and for the same reason: this window has no modal, so
+/// a confirmation is drawn in place of the buttons that armed it. The target id is carried here rather
+/// than read from the selection at confirm time — otherwise selecting a different row between arming
+/// and confirming would apply the answer to something else.
+/// </remarks>
+/// <param name="TeamId">The team the action is aimed at.</param>
+/// <param name="MemberId">The member it is aimed at, for a transfer.</param>
+/// <param name="Question">What is being asked.</param>
+/// <param name="Consequence">What will actually happen, stated honestly.</param>
+internal sealed record TeamActionRequest(
+    Guid TeamId,
+    Guid MemberId,
+    string Question,
+    string Consequence);
+
 /// <summary>One vault of the selected team, with what this account can do to it.</summary>
 internal sealed record TeamVaultRowViewModel(Guid VaultId, string Name, bool IsReadable, bool RekeyRequired)
 {
@@ -108,6 +209,17 @@ internal sealed partial class TeamsViewModel(
     /// <summary>Vaults the selected team owns, as far as this account can see them.</summary>
     internal ObservableCollection<TeamVaultRowViewModel> Vaults { get; } = [];
 
+    /// <summary>Who holds a key to the selected vault.</summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Read from the server rather than from the session, and it is the one list on this screen that
+    /// has to be: the keyring can only answer whether <em>this</em> machine can open a vault, and this
+    /// question is about everybody else.
+    /// </remarks>
+    internal ObservableCollection<TeamGrantRowViewModel> Grants { get; } = [];
+
+    /// <summary>Invitations to addresses that are not accounts here yet.</summary>
+    internal ObservableCollection<TeamInvitationRowViewModel> Invitations { get; } = [];
+
     [ObservableProperty]
     private TeamRowViewModel? selectedTeam;
 
@@ -117,6 +229,9 @@ internal sealed partial class TeamsViewModel(
     [ObservableProperty]
     private TeamVaultRowViewModel? selectedVault;
 
+    [ObservableProperty]
+    private TeamInvitationRowViewModel? selectedInvitation;
+
     [ObservableProperty]
     private string status = string.Empty;
 
@@ -134,26 +249,92 @@ internal sealed partial class TeamsViewModel(
     [ObservableProperty]
     private string newTeamSlug = string.Empty;
 
+    // ---- Renaming a team ----
+
+    [ObservableProperty]
+    private bool isEditingTeam;
+
+    [ObservableProperty]
+    private string editTeamName = string.Empty;
+
+    [ObservableProperty]
+    private string editTeamDescription = string.Empty;
+
     // ---- Adding a member ----
 
     [ObservableProperty]
     private string inviteEmail = string.Empty;
 
+    /// <summary>
+    /// The role a newly added or invited account gets.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Member by default, which is the role somebody adding a colleague almost always means. Viewer
+    /// would be safer and would be the wrong default: an interface whose default is wrong teaches
+    /// people to change it without reading it.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [ObservableProperty]
+    private TeamMemberRole newMemberRole = TeamMemberRole.Member;
+
+    // ---- Confirming something that cannot be undone ----
+
+    [ObservableProperty]
+    private TeamActionRequest? pendingAction;
+
     /// <summary>Whether there is a server to talk to at all.</summary>
     internal bool IsOnline => connection() is not null;
 
     /// <summary>Whether the selected team can be administered by this account.</summary>
     internal bool CanAdministerSelected => SelectedTeam?.CanAdminister == true;
 
+    /// <summary>Whether this account owns the selected team.</summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// A narrower gate than <see cref="CanAdministerSelected"/>, and the server draws the same line:
+    /// archiving a team and handing it over decide whether it goes on existing and who controls it,
+    /// so an admin the owner promoted must not be able to do either.
+    /// </remarks>
+    internal bool OwnsSelected => SelectedTeam?.Team.Role == TeamMemberRole.Owner;
+
     /// <summary>Whether there is anything to show below the team list.</summary>
     internal bool HasSelection => SelectedTeam is not null;
 
     internal bool HasTeams => Teams.Count > 0;
 
+    /// <summary>Whether a destructive action is armed and waiting for an answer.</summary>
+    internal bool IsConfirming => PendingAction is not null;
+
+    /// <summary>Whether the ordinary team buttons should be showing.</summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The inverse of <see cref="IsConfirming"/>, so the confirmation replaces the buttons that armed
+    /// it rather than appearing beneath them still pressable.
+    /// </remarks>
+    internal bool ShowsTeamActions => !IsConfirming;
+
+    /// <summary>Whether the selected team has any invitation worth drawing a list for.</summary>
+    internal bool HasInvitations => Invitations.Count > 0;
+
+    internal bool AddsAsViewer => NewMemberRole == TeamMemberRole.Viewer;
+
+    internal bool AddsAsMember => NewMemberRole == TeamMemberRole.Member;
+
+    internal bool AddsAsAdmin => NewMemberRole == TeamMemberRole.Admin;
+
     /// <summary>Reads the teams this account belongs to, and the selected one's detail.</summary>
     internal Task LoadAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
         RunAsync(() => ReloadAsync(cancellationToken));
 
+    /// <summary>Reads it all again.</summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The same work as <see cref="LoadAsync"/>, exposed as a command because markup cannot invoke a
+    /// method. The phone needs it and the desktop does not: this screen is loaded on arrival, and on
+    /// the desktop leaving the rail and coming back is one click, where on the phone it is a trip out
+    /// to MORE and back. Nothing on this screen is cached, so a re-read is the only way to see a change
+    /// somebody else made.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [RelayCommand]
+    private Task RefreshAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        RunAsync(() => ReloadAsync(cancellationToken));
+
     /// <summary>
     /// The reload itself, without the busy gate.
     /// </summary>
@@ -289,16 +470,14 @@ internal sealed partial class TeamsViewModel(
 
             if (found.Count == 0)
             {
-                Status = $"No account here has the address '{email}'. They have to sign in to this "
+                await InviteAsync(server, team, email, cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(true);
-                    + "server once before they can be added — that is what publishes the key a vault "
-                    + "would be shared with.";
                 return;
             }
 
             var member = await server.Teams
                 .AddTeamMemberAsync(
                     team.TeamId,
-                    new AddTeamMemberRequest(found[0].UserId, TeamMemberRole.Member),
+                    new AddTeamMemberRequest(found[0].UserId, NewMemberRole),
                     cancellationToken)
                 .ConfigureAwait(true);
 
@@ -313,6 +492,282 @@ internal sealed partial class TeamsViewModel(
         }).ConfigureAwait(true);
     }
 
+    /// <summary>
+    /// Invites an address the directory does not know.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <para>
+    /// Reached by falling through from <see cref="AddMemberAsync"/> rather than from a second button,
+    /// because the person typing an address does not know or care which of the two applies — that is a
+    /// fact about the server's account table, not about what they are trying to do. Which one happened
+    /// is reported afterwards, because the difference decides what they have to do next.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// The message has to carry the whole mechanism. Nothing is sent — this server has no outbound
+    /// mail — so somebody who reads "invited" and waits has been misled by an interface that knew
+    /// better.
+    /// </para>
+    /// </remarks>
+    private async Task InviteAsync(
+        IVaultServer server,
+        TeamRowViewModel team,
+        string email,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        var invitation = await server.Teams
+            .CreateTeamInvitationAsync(
+                team.TeamId,
+                new CreateTeamInvitationRequest(Guid.CreateVersion7(), email, NewMemberRole),
+                cancellationToken)
+            .ConfigureAwait(true);
+
+        InviteEmail = string.Empty;
+
+        await ReloadAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(true);
+
+        Status = $"No account here has the address '{email}' yet, so it has been invited instead. "
+            + $"They join this team as {invitation.Role.ToString().ToLowerInvariant()} the first time "
+            + "they sign in. Nothing was sent — this server cannot send mail, so tell them yourself — "
+            + "and their identity provider has to confirm the address is theirs.";
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Withdraws an invitation that has not been taken up.</summary>
+    [RelayCommand]
+    private async Task RevokeInvitationAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        if (connection() is not { } server
+            || SelectedTeam is not { } team
+            || SelectedInvitation is not { } invitation)
+        {
+            return;
+        }
+
+        await RunAsync(async () =>
+        {
+            var revoked = await server.Teams
+                .RevokeTeamInvitationAsync(team.TeamId, invitation.InvitationId, cancellationToken)
+                .ConfigureAwait(true);
+
+            await ReloadAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(true);
+
+            Status = revoked
+                ? $"Withdrew the invitation to {invitation.Email}. Signing in will no longer put them "
+                    + "in this team."
+                : $"The invitation to {invitation.Email} was already taken up or withdrawn. If they "
+                    + "are a member now, remove them instead.";
+        }).ConfigureAwait(true);
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Picks the role a newly added or invited account will get.</summary>
+    [RelayCommand]
+    private void ChooseNewMemberRole(TeamMemberRole role) => NewMemberRole = role;
+
+    /// <summary>Changes the selected member's role.</summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Owner is not offered, and the command refuses it rather than relying on the view not to send
+    /// it: the server refuses it too, and a button that produced a server error would be reporting a
+    /// rule the interface should have known.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [RelayCommand]
+    private async Task ChangeRoleAsync(TeamMemberRole role, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        if (connection() is not { } server
+            || SelectedTeam is not { } team
+            || SelectedMember is not { } member)
+        {
+            return;
+        }
+
+        if (role is TeamMemberRole.Owner or TeamMemberRole.Unspecified)
+        {
+            Status = "Ownership is handed over rather than assigned. Use HAND OVER below.";
+            return;
+        }
+
+        if (member.Member.Role == role)
+        {
+            return;
+        }
+
+        await RunAsync(async () =>
+        {
+            var changed = await server.Teams
+                .ChangeTeamMemberRoleAsync(
+                    team.TeamId,
+                    member.UserId,
+                    new ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest(role),
+                    cancellationToken)
+                .ConfigureAwait(true);
+
+            await ReloadAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(true);
+
+            SelectedMember = Members.FirstOrDefault(row => row.UserId == member.UserId);
+
+            // What a role does and does not reach. A viewer still holds whatever key they were
+            // wrapped, so demoting somebody is not a way of taking a vault back from them.
+            Status = $"{member.Name} is now {changed.Role.ToString().ToLowerInvariant()}. This changes "
+                + "what the server will serve them; it does not withdraw a vault key they already "
+                + "hold — use WITHDRAW KEY for that.";
+        }).ConfigureAwait(true);
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Opens the rename form for the selected team.</summary>
+    [RelayCommand]
+    private void RenameTeam()
+    {
+        if (SelectedTeam is not { } team)
+        {
+            return;
+        }
+
+        EditTeamName = team.Name;
+        EditTeamDescription = team.Team.Description ?? string.Empty;
+        IsEditingTeam = true;
+        Status = string.Empty;
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Abandons the rename form.</summary>
+    [RelayCommand]
+    private void CancelRenameTeam()
+    {
+        IsEditingTeam = false;
+        Status = string.Empty;
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Saves the renamed team.</summary>
+    [RelayCommand]
+    private async Task SaveTeamAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        if (connection() is not { } server || SelectedTeam is not { } team)
+        {
+            return;
+        }
+
+        var name = EditTeamName.Trim();
+
+        if (name.Length == 0)
+        {
+            Status = "A team needs a name.";
+            return;
+        }
+
+        var description = EditTeamDescription.Trim();
+
+        await RunAsync(async () =>
+        {
+            await server.Teams
+                .UpdateTeamAsync(
+                    team.TeamId,
+                    new UpdateTeamRequest(name, description.Length == 0 ? null : description),
+                    cancellationToken)
+                .ConfigureAwait(true);
+
+            IsEditingTeam = false;
+
+            await ReloadAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(true);
+
+            // The slug is named because it did not change and somebody expecting it to would
+            // otherwise find out from a URL much later.
+            Status = $"Renamed to '{name}'. Its slug is still '{team.Slug}' — that is what URLs and "
+                + "the server's own records use, and it does not change.";
+        }).ConfigureAwait(true);
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Arms the archive confirmation for the selected team.</summary>
+    [RelayCommand]
+    private void ArchiveTeam()
+    {
+        if (SelectedTeam is not { } team)
+        {
+            return;
+        }
+
+        PendingAction = new TeamActionRequest(
+            team.TeamId,
+            Guid.Empty,
+            $"Archive '{team.Name}'?",
+            "Everybody loses sight of it at once, and only somebody with database access can bring it "
+            + "back. It is refused outright if the team still owns any vault.");
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Arms the hand-over confirmation for the selected member.</summary>
+    [RelayCommand]
+    private void TransferOwnership()
+    {
+        if (SelectedTeam is not { } team || SelectedMember is not { } member)
+        {
+            return;
+        }
+
+        if (member.IsSelf)
+        {
+            Status = "You already own this team.";
+            return;
+        }
+
+        PendingAction = new TeamActionRequest(
+            team.TeamId,
+            member.UserId,
+            $"Hand '{team.Name}' to {member.Name}?",
+            "They become the owner and you become an admin. You will not be able to take it back "
+            + "yourself — only the new owner can hand it on.");
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Cancels an armed action.</summary>
+    [RelayCommand]
+    private void CancelAction() => PendingAction = null;
+
+    /// <summary>
+    /// Carries out whichever action was armed.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Disarmed before the work rather than after it, so the card goes the moment it is answered and a
+    /// second press during a slow round trip has nothing left to agree to.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [RelayCommand]
+    private async Task ConfirmActionAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        if (connection() is not { } server || PendingAction is not { } request)
+        {
+            return;
+        }
+
+        PendingAction = null;
+
+        await RunAsync(async () =>
+        {
+            if (request.MemberId == Guid.Empty)
+            {
+                var archived = await server.Teams
+                    .ArchiveTeamAsync(request.TeamId, cancellationToken)
+                    .ConfigureAwait(true);
+
+                SelectedTeam = null;
+
+                await ReloadAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(true);
+
+                Status = archived
+                    ? "Archived. It is gone from everybody's list; the rows are still in the database "
+                        + "and only an operator can bring them back."
+                    : "There was no such team to archive.";
+
+                return;
+            }
+
+            await server.Teams
+                .TransferTeamOwnershipAsync(
+                    request.TeamId,
+                    new TransferTeamOwnershipRequest(request.MemberId),
+                    cancellationToken)
+                .ConfigureAwait(true);
+
+            await ReloadAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(true);
+
+            Status = "Handed over. You are an admin of this team now, and only its new owner can hand "
+                + "it on again.";
+        }).ConfigureAwait(true);
+    }
+
     /// <summary>Removes a member, revoking every vault key grant they hold from this team.</summary>
     [RelayCommand]
     private async Task RemoveMemberAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
@@ -432,17 +887,70 @@ internal sealed partial class TeamsViewModel(
     {
         RaiseState();
 
+        // An armed confirmation names the team it was armed for, so a selection change has to disarm
+        // it — otherwise the card stays on screen above a different team and reads as being about it.
+        PendingAction = null;
+        IsEditingTeam = false;
+
         // Fire-and-forget on purpose, and the only place in this class that is: selection changes come
         // from a list box, which has no cancellation token and no way to await. Failures land in Status
         // through RunAsync exactly as a command's would.
         _ = LoadSelectedAsync(CancellationToken.None);
     }
 
-    /// <summary>Reads the selected team's members and vaults.</summary>
+    partial void OnPendingActionChanged(TeamActionRequest? value)
+    {
+        OnPropertyChanged(nameof(IsConfirming));
+        OnPropertyChanged(nameof(ShowsTeamActions));
+    }
+
+    partial void OnNewMemberRoleChanged(TeamMemberRole value)
+    {
+        OnPropertyChanged(nameof(AddsAsViewer));
+        OnPropertyChanged(nameof(AddsAsMember));
+        OnPropertyChanged(nameof(AddsAsAdmin));
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The grants list belongs to a vault rather than to a team, so it is reloaded on selection here
+    /// rather than in <see cref="LoadSelectedAsync"/> — which would leave it showing the previous
+    /// vault's key-holders after a click.
+    /// </remarks>
+    partial void OnSelectedVaultChanged(TeamVaultRowViewModel? value) =>
+        _ = LoadGrantsAsync(CancellationToken.None);
+
+    /// <summary>Reads who holds a key to the selected vault.</summary>
+    private async Task LoadGrantsAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        Grants.Clear();
+
+        if (connection() is not { } server || SelectedVault is not { } vault)
+        {
+            return;
+        }
+
+        await RunAsync(async () =>
+        {
+            var response = await server.Grants
+                .ListVaultGrantsAsync(vault.VaultId, cancellationToken)
+                .ConfigureAwait(true);
+
+            Grants.Clear();
+
+            foreach (var grant in response.Grants)
+            {
+                Grants.Add(new TeamGrantRowViewModel(grant, response.KeyGeneration));
+            }
+        }).ConfigureAwait(true);
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Reads the selected team's members, invitations and vaults.</summary>
     private async Task LoadSelectedAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
     {
         Members.Clear();
+        Invitations.Clear();
         Vaults.Clear();
+        Grants.Clear();
 
         if (connection() is not { } server || SelectedTeam is not { } team)
         {
@@ -461,6 +969,19 @@ internal sealed partial class TeamsViewModel(
             Members.Add(new TeamMemberRowViewModel(member, member.UserId == selfId));
         }
 
+        var invitations = await server.Teams
+            .ListTeamInvitationsAsync(team.TeamId, cancellationToken)
+            .ConfigureAwait(true);
+
+        foreach (var invitation in invitations)
+        {
+            Invitations.Add(new TeamInvitationRowViewModel(invitation));
+        }
+
+        SelectedInvitation = Invitations.FirstOrDefault(row => row.IsPending);
+
+        OnPropertyChanged(nameof(HasInvitations));
+
         if (open is null)
         {
             return;
@@ -485,6 +1006,8 @@ internal sealed partial class TeamsViewModel(
         OnPropertyChanged(nameof(HasTeams));
         OnPropertyChanged(nameof(HasSelection));
         OnPropertyChanged(nameof(CanAdministerSelected));
+        OnPropertyChanged(nameof(OwnsSelected));
+        OnPropertyChanged(nameof(HasInvitations));
         OnPropertyChanged(nameof(IsOnline));
     }
 

src/DodoSSH.Contracts/DodoSshJsonContext.cs

@@ -43,10 +43,15 @@ namespace DodoSSH.Contracts;
 [JsonSerializable(typeof(TeamSummary))]
 [JsonSerializable(typeof(IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>))]
 [JsonSerializable(typeof(CreateTeamRequest))]
+[JsonSerializable(typeof(UpdateTeamRequest))]
+[JsonSerializable(typeof(TransferTeamOwnershipRequest))]
 [JsonSerializable(typeof(TeamMemberSummary))]
 [JsonSerializable(typeof(IReadOnlyList<TeamMemberSummary>))]
 [JsonSerializable(typeof(AddTeamMemberRequest))]
 [JsonSerializable(typeof(ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest))]
+[JsonSerializable(typeof(CreateTeamInvitationRequest))]
+[JsonSerializable(typeof(TeamInvitationSummary))]
+[JsonSerializable(typeof(IReadOnlyList<TeamInvitationSummary>))]
 [JsonSerializable(typeof(CreateTeamVaultRequest))]
 [JsonSerializable(typeof(IssueVaultGrantRequest))]
 [JsonSerializable(typeof(VaultGrantsResponse))]

src/DodoSSH.Contracts/ProblemCodes.cs

@@ -102,10 +102,34 @@ public static class ProblemCodes
     /// </summary>
     /// <remarks>
     /// Refused rather than allowed, because a team with no owner has nobody who can appoint one —
-    /// and the only route back would be an operator editing the database by hand.
+    /// and the only route back would be an operator editing the database by hand. The way past it is
+    /// <c>POST /api/v1/teams/{teamId}/owner</c>, which moves ownership and the outgoing owner's
+    /// demotion in one transaction; a client that gets this code can offer that.
     /// </remarks>
     public const string LastTeamOwner = "last-team-owner";
 
+    /// <summary>
+    /// A team cannot be archived while it still owns vaults.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Its own code because the remedy is neither "fix what you typed" nor "pick another value": it is
+    /// to deal with the vaults first. Archiving anyway would hide vaults from every member including
+    /// the ones holding keys to them, and this product has no way to delete a vault, so the refusal is
+    /// the honest end of that road rather than a step on it.
+    /// </remarks>
+    public const string TeamNotEmpty = "team-not-empty";
+
+    /// <summary>
+    /// An invitation was rejected: a malformed address, an unknown or ownership role, an expiry the
+    /// server will not issue, or an address that already has an account here.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Separate from <see cref="InvalidTeam"/> because the most common cause has its own remedy that a
+    /// client can act on — an address that already has an account should be added through the
+    /// directory instead, which is the path that shows the caller the key they are about to trust.
+    /// </remarks>
+    public const string InvalidTeamInvitation = "invalid-team-invitation";
+
     /// <summary>
     /// A vault key grant was rejected: a fingerprint or wrap of the wrong size, a generation that is
     /// not the vault's current one, or a recipient who cannot reach the vault in the first place.

src/DodoSSH.Contracts/PublicAPI.Unshipped.txt

@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.InvalidCursor = "invalid-cursor" -> string!
 const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.InvalidDeviceRegistration = "invalid-device-registration" -> string!
 const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.InvalidEnrollment = "invalid-enrollment" -> string!
 const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.InvalidTeam = "invalid-team" -> string!
+const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.InvalidTeamInvitation = "invalid-team-invitation" -> string!
 const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.InvalidVaultGrant = "invalid-vault-grant" -> string!
 const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.LastTeamOwner = "last-team-owner" -> string!
 const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.MalformedRequest = "malformed-request" -> string!
@@ -16,6 +17,7 @@ const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.PushBatchTooLarge = "push-batch-too-large"
 const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.RelayLimitReached = "relay-limit-reached" -> string!
 const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.RelayTargetRejected = "relay-target-rejected" -> string!
 const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.RelayTicketInvalid = "relay-ticket-invalid" -> string!
+const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.TeamNotEmpty = "team-not-empty" -> string!
 const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.TeamSlugTaken = "team-slug-taken" -> string!
 const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.TypeBaseUri = "https://dodossh.dev/problems/" -> string!
 const DodoSSH.Contracts.ProblemCodes.VaultConflict = "vault-conflict" -> string!
@@ -35,6 +37,17 @@ DodoSSH.Contracts.ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest.Deconstruct(out DodoSSH.Contracts.
 DodoSSH.Contracts.ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest.Equals(DodoSSH.Contracts.ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest? other) -> bool
 DodoSSH.Contracts.ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest.Role.get -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole
 DodoSSH.Contracts.ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest.Role.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest
+DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.<Clone>$() -> DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest!
+DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.CreateTeamInvitationRequest(System.Guid InvitationId, string! Email, DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole Role) -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.Deconstruct(out System.Guid InvitationId, out string! Email, out DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole Role) -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.Email.get -> string!
+DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.Email.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.Equals(DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest? other) -> bool
+DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.InvitationId.get -> System.Guid
+DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.InvitationId.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.Role.get -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole
+DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.Role.init -> void
 DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamRequest
 DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamRequest.<Clone>$() -> DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamRequest!
 DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamRequest.CreateTeamRequest(System.Guid TeamId, string! Name, string! Slug, string? Description) -> void
@@ -433,12 +446,12 @@ DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType
 DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType.ActivityLogEntry = 12 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType
 DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType.ConnectionLogEntry = 11 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType
 DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType.Credential = 2 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType
-DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType.ObjectStore = 13 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType
 DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType.Host = 1 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType
 DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType.HostCredential = 7 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType
 DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType.HostGroup = 4 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType
 DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType.HostTag = 6 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType
 DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType.KnownHostKey = 10 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType
+DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType.ObjectStore = 13 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType
 DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType.PortForward = 9 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType
 DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType.Snippet = 8 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType
 DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType.SshKey = 3 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncEntityType
@@ -554,6 +567,33 @@ DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResult.Status.init -> void
 DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResult.SyncPushResult(System.Guid OperationId, DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncOperationStatus Status, int? Version, long? ChangeSequence, DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncChange? ServerEntity, string? Detail) -> void
 DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResult.Version.get -> int?
 DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResult.Version.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationState
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationState.Accepted = 2 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationState
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationState.Expired = 4 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationState
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationState.Pending = 1 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationState
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationState.Revoked = 3 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationState
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationState.Unspecified = 0 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationState
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.<Clone>$() -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary!
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.AcceptedAt.get -> System.DateTimeOffset?
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.AcceptedAt.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.CreatedAt.get -> System.DateTimeOffset
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.CreatedAt.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.Deconstruct(out System.Guid InvitationId, out string! Email, out DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole Role, out DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationState State, out System.Guid InvitedByUserId, out System.DateTimeOffset CreatedAt, out System.DateTimeOffset ExpiresAt, out System.DateTimeOffset? AcceptedAt) -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.Email.get -> string!
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.Email.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.Equals(DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary? other) -> bool
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.ExpiresAt.get -> System.DateTimeOffset
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.ExpiresAt.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.InvitationId.get -> System.Guid
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.InvitationId.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.InvitedByUserId.get -> System.Guid
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.InvitedByUserId.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.Role.get -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.Role.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.State.get -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationState
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.State.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.TeamInvitationSummary(System.Guid InvitationId, string! Email, DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole Role, DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationState State, System.Guid InvitedByUserId, System.DateTimeOffset CreatedAt, System.DateTimeOffset ExpiresAt, System.DateTimeOffset? AcceptedAt) -> void
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole.Admin = 30 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole.Member = 20 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole
@@ -567,7 +607,7 @@ DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberStatus.Revoked = 3 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSt
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberStatus.Unspecified = 0 -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberStatus
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.<Clone>$() -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary!
-DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.Deconstruct(out System.Guid UserId, out string? Email, out string? DisplayName, out DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole Role, out DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberStatus Status, out bool IsEnrolled, out System.DateTimeOffset? JoinedAt) -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.Deconstruct(out System.Guid UserId, out string? Email, out string? DisplayName, out DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole Role, out DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberStatus Status, out bool IsEnrolled, out System.DateTimeOffset? JoinedAt, out System.DateTimeOffset? LastActiveAt) -> void
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.DisplayName.get -> string?
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.DisplayName.init -> void
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.Email.get -> string?
@@ -577,11 +617,13 @@ DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.IsEnrolled.get -> bool
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.IsEnrolled.init -> void
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.JoinedAt.get -> System.DateTimeOffset?
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.JoinedAt.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.LastActiveAt.get -> System.DateTimeOffset?
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.LastActiveAt.init -> void
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.Role.get -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.Role.init -> void
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.Status.get -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberStatus
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.Status.init -> void
-DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.TeamMemberSummary(System.Guid UserId, string? Email, string? DisplayName, DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole Role, DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberStatus Status, bool IsEnrolled, System.DateTimeOffset? JoinedAt) -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.TeamMemberSummary(System.Guid UserId, string? Email, string? DisplayName, DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole Role, DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberStatus Status, bool IsEnrolled, System.DateTimeOffset? JoinedAt, System.DateTimeOffset? LastActiveAt = null) -> void
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.UserId.get -> System.Guid
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.UserId.init -> void
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamSummary
@@ -605,6 +647,22 @@ DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamSummary.TeamId.init -> void
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamSummary.TeamSummary(System.Guid TeamId, string! Name, string! Slug, string? Description, DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberRole Role, int MemberCount, int VaultCount, System.DateTimeOffset CreatedAt) -> void
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamSummary.VaultCount.get -> int
 DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamSummary.VaultCount.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest.<Clone>$() -> DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest!
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest.Deconstruct(out System.Guid UserId) -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest.Equals(DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest? other) -> bool
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest(System.Guid UserId) -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest.UserId.get -> System.Guid
+DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest.UserId.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest
+DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest.<Clone>$() -> DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest!
+DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest.Deconstruct(out string! Name, out string? Description) -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest.Description.get -> string?
+DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest.Description.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest.Equals(DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest? other) -> bool
+DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest.Name.get -> string!
+DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest.Name.init -> void
+DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest.UpdateTeamRequest(string! Name, string? Description) -> void
 DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantsResponse
 DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantsResponse.<Clone>$() -> DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantsResponse!
 DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantsResponse.Deconstruct(out System.Guid VaultId, out uint KeyGeneration, out bool RekeyRequired, out System.Collections.Generic.IReadOnlyList<DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantSummary!>! Grants) -> void
@@ -671,6 +729,9 @@ override DodoSSH.Contracts.AddTeamMemberRequest.ToString() -> string!
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest.Equals(object? obj) -> bool
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest.GetHashCode() -> int
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest.ToString() -> string!
+override DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.Equals(object? obj) -> bool
+override DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.GetHashCode() -> int
+override DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.ToString() -> string!
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamRequest.Equals(object? obj) -> bool
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamRequest.GetHashCode() -> int
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamRequest.ToString() -> string!
@@ -761,12 +822,21 @@ override DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResponse.ToString() -> string!
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResult.Equals(object? obj) -> bool
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResult.GetHashCode() -> int
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResult.ToString() -> string!
+override DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.Equals(object? obj) -> bool
+override DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.GetHashCode() -> int
+override DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.ToString() -> string!
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.Equals(object? obj) -> bool
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.GetHashCode() -> int
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.ToString() -> string!
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamSummary.Equals(object? obj) -> bool
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamSummary.GetHashCode() -> int
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamSummary.ToString() -> string!
+override DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest.Equals(object? obj) -> bool
+override DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest.GetHashCode() -> int
+override DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest.ToString() -> string!
+override DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest.Equals(object? obj) -> bool
+override DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest.GetHashCode() -> int
+override DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest.ToString() -> string!
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantsResponse.Equals(object? obj) -> bool
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantsResponse.GetHashCode() -> int
 override DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantsResponse.ToString() -> string!
@@ -780,6 +850,8 @@ static DodoSSH.Contracts.AddTeamMemberRequest.operator !=(DodoSSH.Contracts.AddT
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.AddTeamMemberRequest.operator ==(DodoSSH.Contracts.AddTeamMemberRequest? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.AddTeamMemberRequest? right) -> bool
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest.operator !=(DodoSSH.Contracts.ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest? right) -> bool
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest.operator ==(DodoSSH.Contracts.ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest? right) -> bool
+static DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.operator !=(DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest? right) -> bool
+static DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest.operator ==(DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamInvitationRequest? right) -> bool
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamRequest.operator !=(DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamRequest? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamRequest? right) -> bool
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamRequest.operator ==(DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamRequest? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamRequest? right) -> bool
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamVaultRequest.operator !=(DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamVaultRequest? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.CreateTeamVaultRequest? right) -> bool
@@ -843,10 +915,16 @@ static DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResponse.operator !=(DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPush
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResponse.operator ==(DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResponse? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResponse? right) -> bool
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResult.operator !=(DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResult? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResult? right) -> bool
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResult.operator ==(DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResult? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.SyncPushResult? right) -> bool
+static DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.operator !=(DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary? right) -> bool
+static DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary.operator ==(DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamInvitationSummary? right) -> bool
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.operator !=(DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary? right) -> bool
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary.operator ==(DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamMemberSummary? right) -> bool
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamSummary.operator !=(DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamSummary? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamSummary? right) -> bool
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamSummary.operator ==(DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamSummary? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.TeamSummary? right) -> bool
+static DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest.operator !=(DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest? right) -> bool
+static DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest.operator ==(DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.TransferTeamOwnershipRequest? right) -> bool
+static DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest.operator !=(DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest? right) -> bool
+static DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest.operator ==(DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.UpdateTeamRequest? right) -> bool
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantsResponse.operator !=(DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantsResponse? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantsResponse? right) -> bool
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantsResponse.operator ==(DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantsResponse? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantsResponse? right) -> bool
 static DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantSummary.operator !=(DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantSummary? left, DodoSSH.Contracts.VaultGrantSummary? right) -> bool

src/DodoSSH.Contracts/Teams.cs

@@ -49,10 +49,18 @@ public enum TeamMemberStatus
     /// Invited but not yet accepted.
     /// </summary>
     /// <remarks>
-    /// Nothing writes this today. An invitation needs a token with a lifetime and an outbound mail
+    /// <para>
-    /// path, and this server has neither — so a member is added by looking their account up in the
+    /// Still nothing writes this, and invitations shipping is the reason rather than an exception to
-    /// directory, which requires that they have signed in here at least once. Retained because the
+    /// it. A membership names an account: <c>team_membership.user_id</c> is not nullable and carries a
-    /// column exists and a client must not fail on a value a later server may send.
+    /// foreign key, so somebody who has never signed in has nothing for that row to point at. An
+    /// invitation is therefore its own record against an <em>address</em>
+    /// (<see cref="TeamInvitationSummary"/>), and it becomes a membership at
+    /// <see cref="Active"/> the moment an account with that address first signs in.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// Retained because the column exists and a client must not fail on a value a later server may
+    /// send — a server that grew a second invitation model would use it.
+    /// </para>
     /// </remarks>
     Invited = 1,
 
@@ -124,11 +132,51 @@ public sealed record CreateTeamRequest(
     string Slug,
     string? Description);
 
+/// <summary>Renames a team, or changes its description.</summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// <para>
+/// The slug is not here and cannot be changed. It is what a URL, an operator's query and any bookmark
+/// name, and it is unique only among <em>live</em> teams — so a rename could take a slug an archived
+/// team is still holding on to, and the archived one could then never be brought back. Renaming the
+/// display name is the operation people actually want; renaming the identifier is a migration.
+/// </para>
+/// <para>
+/// A whole replacement rather than a patch: both fields are always sent, so clearing a description is
+/// sending null rather than a distinct verb. There is nowhere to record <em>when</em> a team was last
+/// renamed — <c>team</c> has no updated-at column — so no client can show "edited", and this contract
+/// does not pretend one can.
+/// </para>
+/// </remarks>
+/// <param name="Name">Display name. Required.</param>
+/// <param name="Description">Optional description. Null clears it.</param>
+public sealed record UpdateTeamRequest(string Name, string? Description);
+
+/// <summary>Hands a team's ownership to another member.</summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// <para>
+/// Its own operation rather than a role change, because it is two writes that must not be separable:
+/// the recipient becomes owner and the outgoing owner becomes an admin, in one transaction. Ownership
+/// is sole, so doing it as two role changes would leave the team either briefly ownerless or briefly
+/// owned twice, and <see cref="ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest"/> refuses
+/// <see cref="TeamMemberRole.Owner"/> outright for exactly that reason.
+/// </para>
+/// <para>
+/// The outgoing owner is demoted to <see cref="TeamMemberRole.Admin"/> rather than removed. Removing
+/// them would revoke their vault key grants and flag every team vault for rekey, which is a far larger
+/// act than the one being asked for — and somebody handing over a team is usually staying in it.
+/// </para>
+/// </remarks>
+/// <param name="UserId">
+/// The member to hand it to. Must already be an active member: adding somebody and making them owner
+/// in one step would let an address typed once take the team.
+/// </param>
+public sealed record TransferTeamOwnershipRequest(Guid UserId);
+
 /// <summary>One member of a team.</summary>
 /// <remarks>
-/// Carries no last-active time and no avatar. <c>UserAccount.LastSeenAtUtc</c> is written at
+/// Carries no avatar, because no picture is stored anywhere. It does now carry a last-active time —
-/// provisioning and at enrollment and at no other point, so a column labelled "last active" would
+/// see <see cref="LastActiveAt"/>, which names precisely what it measures, because the useful version
-/// be reporting something else entirely; and no picture is stored anywhere.
+/// of that column and the misleading one differ only in what the server bothered to write down.
 /// </remarks>
 /// <param name="UserId">The member.</param>
 /// <param name="Email">Email, for display.</param>
@@ -141,6 +189,15 @@ public sealed record CreateTeamRequest(
 /// rather than offering a share that would fail.
 /// </param>
 /// <param name="JoinedAt">When the membership became active.</param>
+/// <param name="LastActiveAt">
+/// When this account last made an authenticated request, or null if it never has.
+/// <para>
+/// It is deliberately coarse. The server records it at most once per account per hour, so a value an
+/// hour old means "recently" rather than "at that instant" — which is the granularity the question is
+/// actually asked at, and a far smaller thing to know about a colleague than a per-request timeline
+/// would be. Displaying it to the minute would be reading precision into it that is not there.
+/// </para>
+/// </param>
 public sealed record TeamMemberSummary(
     Guid UserId,
     string? Email,
@@ -148,7 +205,8 @@ public sealed record TeamMemberSummary(
     TeamMemberRole Role,
     TeamMemberStatus Status,
     bool IsEnrolled,
-    DateTimeOffset? JoinedAt);
+    DateTimeOffset? JoinedAt,
+    DateTimeOffset? LastActiveAt = null);
 
 /// <summary>Adds a member to a team.</summary>
 /// <remarks>
@@ -165,6 +223,97 @@ public sealed record AddTeamMemberRequest(Guid UserId, TeamMemberRole Role);
 /// <param name="Role">The new role.</param>
 public sealed record ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest(TeamMemberRole Role);
 
+/// <summary>What has become of an invitation.</summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// Derived from the invitation's own timestamps rather than stored, so — unlike every other enum in
+/// this file — it has no <c>DodoSSH.Domain</c> twin and no numbering to keep in step. That is the
+/// point of computing it: <see cref="Expired"/> is a fact about the clock, and a stored state would
+/// have to be swept by something that remembered to run.
+/// </remarks>
+public enum TeamInvitationState
+{
+    /// <summary>Not a legal value.</summary>
+    Unspecified = 0,
+
+    /// <summary>Waiting. It becomes a membership when an account with this address signs in.</summary>
+    Pending = 1,
+
+    /// <summary>Taken up. The address signed in and is now a member.</summary>
+    Accepted = 2,
+
+    /// <summary>Withdrawn before it was taken up.</summary>
+    Revoked = 3,
+
+    /// <summary>Its lifetime ran out. It will not become a membership.</summary>
+    Expired = 4,
+}
+
+/// <summary>Invites an address that has no account here yet.</summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// <para>
+/// <b>By email, where <see cref="AddTeamMemberRequest"/> is by user id.</b> Adding a member resolves an
+/// address through the directory first, so the caller sees the public key they are about to wrap a
+/// vault to. An invitation cannot do that — there may be no account and therefore no key — so it grants
+/// nothing readable and is never a step towards sharing.
+/// </para>
+/// <para>
+/// <b>An address that already has an account is accepted rather than refused</b>, and only an address
+/// already belonging to a member of this team is turned away. Refusing on the strength of an account
+/// existing would make this endpoint an oracle for which addresses have accounts here, answerable by
+/// anybody willing to create a team first — and it would be answering a question the caller did not
+/// ask. Whether the account exists changes only how soon the invitation is taken up: an existing one
+/// picks it up on its next request.
+/// </para>
+/// <para>
+/// <b>There is no token and nothing is sent.</b> This server has no outbound mail path, so the
+/// invitation is not a link: it is a standing instruction that the next account to sign in with this
+/// address joins the team. Telling them to sign in is the caller's job, over a channel this server
+/// does not carry. That also means the address has to be one the identity provider will assert and
+/// mark verified — an unverified email is refused at claim time, because an invitation that anybody
+/// could take by naming somebody else's address is a way in.
+/// </para>
+/// </remarks>
+/// <param name="InvitationId">
+/// Client-generated UUIDv7, for the reason a team id is client-generated: a create whose response was
+/// lost can be re-sent verbatim rather than leaving two invitations to the same address.
+/// </param>
+/// <param name="Email">The address to invite. Matched case-insensitively.</param>
+/// <param name="Role">
+/// Role to grant on arrival. May not be <see cref="TeamMemberRole.Owner"/> — ownership is sole and is
+/// handed over deliberately, never conferred by an address signing in.
+/// </param>
+public sealed record CreateTeamInvitationRequest(
+    Guid InvitationId,
+    string Email,
+    TeamMemberRole Role);
+
+/// <summary>One invitation, as the teams interface sees it.</summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// The address is in plaintext here, as it is on <see cref="TeamMemberSummary"/>. It is readable by
+/// the team's members, who are the people it concerns; the server stores it in plaintext either way
+/// and docs/crypto.md §10 already records that membership metadata is not encrypted.
+/// </remarks>
+/// <param name="InvitationId">The invitation.</param>
+/// <param name="Email">The address invited.</param>
+/// <param name="Role">The role it will grant.</param>
+/// <param name="State">What has become of it.</param>
+/// <param name="InvitedByUserId">Who issued it.</param>
+/// <param name="CreatedAt">When it was issued.</param>
+/// <param name="ExpiresAt">
+/// When it stops being claimable. An invitation that never expired would be a standing offer on an
+/// address somebody may hand on or lose.
+/// </param>
+/// <param name="AcceptedAt">When an account with this address signed in and took it up, if one has.</param>
+public sealed record TeamInvitationSummary(
+    Guid InvitationId,
+    string Email,
+    TeamMemberRole Role,
+    TeamInvitationState State,
+    Guid InvitedByUserId,
+    DateTimeOffset CreatedAt,
+    DateTimeOffset ExpiresAt,
+    DateTimeOffset? AcceptedAt);
+
 /// <summary>
 /// Creates a vault owned by a team, with its key already wrapped to the creator.
 /// </summary>

src/DodoSSH.Domain/Teams.cs

@@ -33,6 +33,9 @@ public sealed class Team
 
     /// <summary>Members.</summary>
     public ICollection<TeamMembership> Memberships { get; } = [];
+
+    /// <summary>Invitations to addresses that have no account here yet.</summary>
+    public ICollection<TeamInvitation> Invitations { get; } = [];
 }
 
 /// <summary>
@@ -77,3 +80,65 @@ public sealed class TeamMembership
     /// <summary>Soft-delete marker.</summary>
     public DateTimeOffset? DeletedAtUtc { get; set; }
 }
+
+/// <summary>
+/// A standing offer of membership to an email address that has no account here yet.
+/// </summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// <para>
+/// <b>Its own table rather than a <see cref="TeamMembership"/> with
+/// <see cref="MembershipStatus.Invited"/>.</b> A membership names an account —
+/// <c>team_membership.user_id</c> is not nullable and carries a foreign key to
+/// <see cref="UserAccount"/> — so an invitee who has never signed in has nothing for that row to
+/// point at. Widening that column would make the unique index on (team, user) meaningless, because
+/// PostgreSQL counts every NULL as distinct, and would silently change what every
+/// <c>m.UserId == user.Id</c> query in the server means.
+/// </para>
+/// <para>
+/// <b>There is no token.</b> Nothing is sent, because this server has no outbound mail path; the row
+/// is an instruction to the sign-in path rather than a secret somebody presents. That is why it is
+/// keyed on the address and why the address has to be one the identity provider marks verified before
+/// the claim is honoured — an unclaimable invitation is an inconvenience, but one claimable by
+/// anybody who can assert an address is a way into the team.
+/// </para>
+/// <para>
+/// Revoked and accepted rows are retained rather than deleted, as <see cref="VaultKeyGrant"/> is and
+/// for the same reason: the uniqueness that matters is among <em>pending</em> invitations, and the
+/// history of who invited whom stays resolvable.
+/// </para>
+/// </remarks>
+public sealed class TeamInvitation
+{
+    /// <summary>Primary key.</summary>
+    public Guid Id { get; set; }
+
+    /// <summary>The team.</summary>
+    public Guid TeamId { get; set; }
+
+    /// <summary>The team.</summary>
+    public Team? Team { get; set; }
+
+    /// <summary>The address invited. Case-insensitive.</summary>
+    public string Email { get; set; } = string.Empty;
+
+    /// <summary>Role the membership will carry when it is claimed.</summary>
+    public TeamRole Role { get; set; }
+
+    /// <summary>Who issued it.</summary>
+    public Guid InvitedByUserId { get; set; }
+
+    /// <summary>Creation timestamp.</summary>
+    public DateTimeOffset CreatedAtUtc { get; set; }
+
+    /// <summary>When it stops being claimable.</summary>
+    public DateTimeOffset ExpiresAtUtc { get; set; }
+
+    /// <summary>When an account with this address signed in and took it up.</summary>
+    public DateTimeOffset? AcceptedAtUtc { get; set; }
+
+    /// <summary>Which account took it up.</summary>
+    public Guid? AcceptedByUserId { get; set; }
+
+    /// <summary>Revocation timestamp.</summary>
+    public DateTimeOffset? RevokedAtUtc { get; set; }
+}

src/DodoSSH.Infrastructure/Configurations/VaultConfigurations.cs

@@ -62,6 +62,47 @@ public sealed class TeamMembershipConfiguration : IEntityTypeConfiguration<TeamM
     }
 }
 
+/// <summary>Maps <see cref="TeamInvitation"/>.</summary>
+public sealed class TeamInvitationConfiguration : IEntityTypeConfiguration<TeamInvitation>
+{
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public void Configure(EntityTypeBuilder<TeamInvitation> builder)
+    {
+        ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(builder);
+
+        builder.ToTable("team_invitation");
+        builder.HasKey(i => i.Id);
+        builder.Property(i => i.Id).ValueGeneratedNever();
+        builder.UseXminConcurrencyToken();
+
+        // citext, matching user_account.email: the claim at sign-in compares an address the identity
+        // provider chose the casing of against one a person typed, and lower() on both sides of that
+        // is a rule somebody eventually forgets on one side.
+        builder.Property(i => i.Email).HasColumnType("citext").HasMaxLength(320).IsRequired();
+        builder.Property(i => i.Role).HasConversion<int>();
+
+        builder.HasOne(i => i.Team)
+            .WithMany(t => t.Invitations)
+            .HasForeignKey(i => i.TeamId)
+            .OnDelete(DeleteBehavior.Cascade);
+
+        // One live invitation per address per team. Filtered on the two tombstones rather than on a
+        // deletion marker, as vault_key_grant is: an accepted or withdrawn invitation is kept, and
+        // re-inviting an address whose invitation lapsed has to be possible.
+        //
+        // Expiry is deliberately not in this predicate. A partial index predicate must be IMMUTABLE,
+        // so now() cannot appear in one; an expired invitation therefore still holds the slot, and
+        // the service treats replacing one as a revoke-and-reissue rather than a second insert.
+        builder.HasIndex(i => new { i.TeamId, i.Email })
+            .IsUnique()
+            .HasFilter("accepted_at_utc IS NULL AND revoked_at_utc IS NULL");
+
+        // The claim at sign-in knows the address and nothing else — it is looking for every team that
+        // invited this person, across all of them — so the address is the hot direction here.
+        builder.HasIndex(i => i.Email);
+    }
+}
+
 /// <summary>Maps <see cref="Vault"/>.</summary>
 public sealed class VaultConfiguration : IEntityTypeConfiguration<Vault>
 {

src/DodoSSH.Infrastructure/DodoDbContext.cs

@@ -45,6 +45,9 @@ public class DodoDbContext(DbContextOptions<DodoDbContext> options) : DbContext(
     /// <summary>Team memberships.</summary>
     public DbSet<TeamMembership> TeamMemberships => Set<TeamMembership>();
 
+    /// <summary>Invitations to addresses with no account here yet.</summary>
+    public DbSet<TeamInvitation> TeamInvitations => Set<TeamInvitation>();
+
     /// <summary>Vaults.</summary>
     public DbSet<Vault> Vaults => Set<Vault>();
 

src/DodoSSH.Infrastructure/Migrations/20260803115126_AddTeamInvitation.cs

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+using System;
+using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Migrations;
+
+#nullable disable
+
+namespace DodoSSH.Infrastructure.Migrations
+{
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public partial class AddTeamInvitation : Migration
+    {
+        /// <inheritdoc />
+        protected override void Up(MigrationBuilder migrationBuilder)
+        {
+            migrationBuilder.CreateTable(
+                name: "team_invitation",
+                schema: "dodo",
+                columns: table => new
+                {
+                    id = table.Column<Guid>(type: "uuid", nullable: false),
+                    team_id = table.Column<Guid>(type: "uuid", nullable: false),
+                    email = table.Column<string>(type: "citext", maxLength: 320, nullable: false),
+                    role = table.Column<int>(type: "integer", nullable: false),
+                    invited_by_user_id = table.Column<Guid>(type: "uuid", nullable: false),
+                    created_at_utc = table.Column<DateTimeOffset>(type: "timestamp with time zone", nullable: false),
+                    expires_at_utc = table.Column<DateTimeOffset>(type: "timestamp with time zone", nullable: false),
+                    accepted_at_utc = table.Column<DateTimeOffset>(type: "timestamp with time zone", nullable: true),
+                    accepted_by_user_id = table.Column<Guid>(type: "uuid", nullable: true),
+                    revoked_at_utc = table.Column<DateTimeOffset>(type: "timestamp with time zone", nullable: true),
+                    xmin = table.Column<uint>(type: "xid", rowVersion: true, nullable: false)
+                },
+                constraints: table =>
+                {
+                    table.PrimaryKey("pk_team_invitation", x => x.id);
+                    table.ForeignKey(
+                        name: "fk_team_invitation_team_team_id",
+                        column: x => x.team_id,
+                        principalSchema: "dodo",
+                        principalTable: "team",
+                        principalColumn: "id",
+                        onDelete: ReferentialAction.Cascade);
+                });
+
+            migrationBuilder.CreateIndex(
+                name: "ix_team_invitation_email",
+                schema: "dodo",
+                table: "team_invitation",
+                column: "email");
+
+            migrationBuilder.CreateIndex(
+                name: "ix_team_invitation_team_id_email",
+                schema: "dodo",
+                table: "team_invitation",
+                columns: new[] { "team_id", "email" },
+                unique: true,
+                filter: "accepted_at_utc IS NULL AND revoked_at_utc IS NULL");
+        }
+
+        /// <inheritdoc />
+        protected override void Down(MigrationBuilder migrationBuilder)
+        {
+            migrationBuilder.DropTable(
+                name: "team_invitation",
+                schema: "dodo");
+        }
+    }
+}

src/DodoSSH.Infrastructure/Migrations/DodoDbContextModelSnapshot.cs

@@ -316,6 +316,70 @@ namespace DodoSSH.Infrastructure.Migrations
                     b.ToTable("team", "dodo");
                 });
 
+            modelBuilder.Entity("DodoSSH.Domain.TeamInvitation", b =>
+                {
+                    b.Property<Guid>("Id")
+                        .HasColumnType("uuid")
+                        .HasColumnName("id");
+
+                    b.Property<DateTimeOffset?>("AcceptedAtUtc")
+                        .HasColumnType("timestamp with time zone")
+                        .HasColumnName("accepted_at_utc");
+
+                    b.Property<Guid?>("AcceptedByUserId")
+                        .HasColumnType("uuid")
+                        .HasColumnName("accepted_by_user_id");
+
+                    b.Property<DateTimeOffset>("CreatedAtUtc")
+                        .HasColumnType("timestamp with time zone")
+                        .HasColumnName("created_at_utc");
+
+                    b.Property<string>("Email")
+                        .IsRequired()
+                        .HasMaxLength(320)
+                        .HasColumnType("citext")
+                        .HasColumnName("email");
+
+                    b.Property<DateTimeOffset>("ExpiresAtUtc")
+                        .HasColumnType("timestamp with time zone")
+                        .HasColumnName("expires_at_utc");
+
+                    b.Property<Guid>("InvitedByUserId")
+                        .HasColumnType("uuid")
+                        .HasColumnName("invited_by_user_id");
+
+                    b.Property<DateTimeOffset?>("RevokedAtUtc")
+                        .HasColumnType("timestamp with time zone")
+                        .HasColumnName("revoked_at_utc");
+
+                    b.Property<int>("Role")
+                        .HasColumnType("integer")
+                        .HasColumnName("role");
+
+                    b.Property<Guid>("TeamId")
+                        .HasColumnType("uuid")
+                        .HasColumnName("team_id");
+
+                    b.Property<uint>("xmin")
+                        .IsConcurrencyToken()
+                        .ValueGeneratedOnAddOrUpdate()
+                        .HasColumnType("xid")
+                        .HasColumnName("xmin");
+
+                    b.HasKey("Id")
+                        .HasName("pk_team_invitation");
+
+                    b.HasIndex("Email")
+                        .HasDatabaseName("ix_team_invitation_email");
+
+                    b.HasIndex("TeamId", "Email")
+                        .IsUnique()
+                        .HasDatabaseName("ix_team_invitation_team_id_email")
+                        .HasFilter("accepted_at_utc IS NULL AND revoked_at_utc IS NULL");
+
+                    b.ToTable("team_invitation", "dodo");
+                });
+
             modelBuilder.Entity("DodoSSH.Domain.TeamMembership", b =>
                 {
                     b.Property<Guid>("Id")
@@ -1580,6 +1644,18 @@ namespace DodoSSH.Infrastructure.Migrations
                     b.Navigation("Vault");
                 });
 
+            modelBuilder.Entity("DodoSSH.Domain.TeamInvitation", b =>
+                {
+                    b.HasOne("DodoSSH.Domain.Team", "Team")
+                        .WithMany("Invitations")
+                        .HasForeignKey("TeamId")
+                        .OnDelete(DeleteBehavior.Cascade)
+                        .IsRequired()
+                        .HasConstraintName("fk_team_invitation_team_team_id");
+
+                    b.Navigation("Team");
+                });
+
             modelBuilder.Entity("DodoSSH.Domain.TeamMembership", b =>
                 {
                     b.HasOne("DodoSSH.Domain.Team", "Team")
@@ -1782,6 +1858,8 @@ namespace DodoSSH.Infrastructure.Migrations
 
             modelBuilder.Entity("DodoSSH.Domain.Team", b =>
                 {
+                    b.Navigation("Invitations");
+
                     b.Navigation("Memberships");
                 });
 

tests/DodoSSH.Api.Tests/ApiFixture.cs

@@ -81,12 +81,18 @@ public sealed class ApiFixture : WebApplicationFactory<Program>, IAsyncLifetime
     }
 
     /// <summary>Creates a client carrying a valid token for the given subject.</summary>
-    public HttpClient CreateClientFor(string subject, string? email = null)
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <paramref name="emailVerified"/> defaults to true, which is what a provider asserts about an
+    /// address it has checked and what every ordinary sign-in means. Passing false mints a token that
+    /// carries the address and no <c>email_verified</c> claim — the shape a team invitation has to
+    /// refuse, and the only way a test can present it.
+    /// </remarks>
+    public HttpClient CreateClientFor(string subject, string? email = null, bool emailVerified = true)
     {
         var client = CreateClient();
         client.DefaultRequestHeaders.Authorization = new AuthenticationHeaderValue(
             "Bearer",
-            IdentityProvider.MintToken(subject, email));
+            IdentityProvider.MintToken(subject, email, emailVerified: emailVerified));
 
         return client;
     }

tests/DodoSSH.Api.Tests/ContractJson.cs

@@ -33,6 +33,21 @@ internal static class ContractJson
         return client.PostAsJsonAsync(url, value, Options, TestContext.Current.CancellationToken);
     }
 
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The same options as <see cref="PostContractAsync"/>, and here for the same reason rather than
+    /// for symmetry: a PUT that serialised its enums differently from a POST would let a wire form the
+    /// specification never described reach exactly the endpoints nothing else covers.
+    /// </remarks>
+    internal static Task<HttpResponseMessage> PutContractAsync<T>(
+        this HttpClient client,
+        string url,
+        T value)
+    {
+        ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(client);
+
+        return client.PutAsJsonAsync(url, value, Options, TestContext.Current.CancellationToken);
+    }
+
     internal static Task<T?> ReadContractAsync<T>(this HttpContent content)
     {
         ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(content);

tests/DodoSSH.Api.Tests/EndpointInventoryTests.cs

@@ -74,6 +74,23 @@ public sealed class EndpointInventoryTests(ApiFixture fixture)
         "PUT /api/v1/teams/{teamId:guid}/members/{userId:guid}/role name=ChangeTeamMemberRole tags=Teams policies=Authenticated anon=False",
         "DELETE /api/v1/teams/{teamId:guid}/members/{userId:guid} name=RemoveTeamMember tags=Teams policies=Authenticated anon=False",
 
+        // Administering a team you are already in, and none of it moves key material — so Authenticated
+        // for the same reason the membership routes above are. Two of the three are gated harder inside
+        // the handler than this table can show: archiving and handing the team over check for the owner
+        // rather than for an admin, because an admin the owner promoted must not be able to take the
+        // team from them. See TeamAccess.IsOwner.
+        "PUT /api/v1/teams/{teamId:guid} name=UpdateTeam tags=Teams policies=Authenticated anon=False",
+        "DELETE /api/v1/teams/{teamId:guid} name=ArchiveTeam tags=Teams policies=Authenticated anon=False",
+        "POST /api/v1/teams/{teamId:guid}/owner name=TransferTeamOwnership tags=Teams policies=Authenticated anon=False",
+
+        // Authenticated, and pointedly not Enrolled. An invitation names an address that may have no
+        // account at all and certainly holds no key; gating these on Enrolled would be demanding a key
+        // of the one participant the feature exists for. Membership is not readability — somebody still
+        // has to wrap the vault key afterwards — so no key is involved on either side.
+        "GET /api/v1/teams/{teamId:guid}/invitations name=ListTeamInvitations tags=Teams policies=Authenticated anon=False",
+        "POST /api/v1/teams/{teamId:guid}/invitations name=CreateTeamInvitation tags=Teams policies=Authenticated anon=False",
+        "DELETE /api/v1/teams/{teamId:guid}/invitations/{invitationId:guid} name=RevokeTeamInvitation tags=Teams policies=Authenticated anon=False",
+
         // Enrolled, because both end in a vault key being wrapped: creating a team means creating a vault
         // in it, and neither is reachable without a key of one's own.
         "POST /api/v1/teams name=CreateTeam tags=Teams policies=Enrolled anon=False",

tests/DodoSSH.Api.Tests/StubIdentityProvider.cs

@@ -67,13 +67,22 @@ public sealed class StubIdentityProvider : IDisposable
     /// <param name="audience">Override the audience, to test rejection.</param>
     /// <param name="issuer">Override the issuer, to test rejection.</param>
     /// <param name="expires">Override expiry, to test rejection.</param>
+    /// <param name="emailVerified">
+    /// Whether the token asserts <c>email_verified</c> over <paramref name="email"/>. True by
+    /// default, because that is what a provider says about an address it has checked and every
+    /// existing caller means a genuine sign-in. False omits the claim outright rather than sending
+    /// <c>false</c>: an absent claim is what a provider that was never configured to send one
+    /// produces, and it is the case the server must not read as verified. The claim is emitted only
+    /// alongside an address, since on its own it asserts nothing about anybody.
+    /// </param>
     public string MintToken(
         string subject,
         string? email = null,
         string? name = null,
         string? audience = null,
         string? issuer = null,
-        DateTime? expires = null)
+        DateTime? expires = null,
+        bool emailVerified = true)
     {
         var now = TimeProvider.System.GetUtcNow().UtcDateTime;
 
@@ -85,6 +94,17 @@ public sealed class StubIdentityProvider : IDisposable
         if (email is not null)
         {
             claims.Add(new System.Security.Claims.Claim("email", email));
+
+            if (emailVerified)
+            {
+                // Boolean, so the handler writes a JSON boolean rather than a quoted string. A real
+                // provider sends one, and the server parses rather than compares — so a test that
+                // sent a string would agree with an implementation that only handled strings.
+                claims.Add(new System.Security.Claims.Claim(
+                    "email_verified",
+                    "true",
+                    System.Security.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.Boolean));
+            }
         }
 
         if (name is not null)

tests/DodoSSH.Api.Tests/TeamEndpointTests.cs

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ using DodoSSH.Contracts;
 namespace DodoSSH.Api.Tests;
 
 /// <summary>
-/// Teams, membership and the vault key grants that make a team vault readable.
+/// Teams, membership, invitations and the vault key grants that make a team vault readable.
 /// </summary>
 /// <remarks>
 /// <para>
@@ -21,13 +21,23 @@ namespace DodoSSH.Api.Tests;
 /// for a key its recipient no longer holds. Each of those looks exactly like working software from the
 /// outside.
 /// </para>
+/// <para>
+/// Two boundaries in here are load-bearing beyond their own endpoint, and both are of that invisible
+/// kind. An admin who can archive a team or hand it away is an admin who can take it from the person
+/// who promoted them, and nothing about the response would say so. An invitation claimed on an address
+/// the identity provider never vouched for is a way into somebody else's team, and every other part of
+/// that request succeeds. Neither has a symptom; each has a test.
+/// </para>
 /// </remarks>
 [Collection(ApiCollection.Name)]
 public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
 {
     private const string TeamsUrl = "/api/v1/teams";
+    private const string MeUrl = "/api/v1/me";
     private const string EnrollUrl = "/api/v1/me/enrollment";
 
+    // ---- Creating and listing ----
+
     [Fact]
     public async Task CreatingATeam_MakesTheCallerItsOwner()
     {
@@ -79,11 +89,7 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
         var response = await client.PostContractAsync(
             TeamsUrl, new CreateTeamRequest(Guid.CreateVersion7(), "Second", slug, null));
 
-        response.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.Conflict);
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(response, HttpStatusCode.Conflict, ProblemCodes.TeamSlugTaken);
-
-        var problem = await response.Content.ReadProblemAsync();
-
-        problem.Code.ShouldBe(ProblemCodes.TeamSlugTaken);
     }
 
     /// <remarks>
@@ -98,18 +104,325 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
 
         var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Private");
 
-        var real = await stranger.GetAsync(
+        var real = await GetAsync(stranger, MembersUrl(team.TeamId));
-            new Uri($"{TeamsUrl}/{team.TeamId}/members", UriKind.Relative),
+        var invented = await GetAsync(stranger, MembersUrl(Guid.CreateVersion7()));
-            TestContext.Current.CancellationToken);
-
-        var invented = await stranger.GetAsync(
-            new Uri($"{TeamsUrl}/{Guid.CreateVersion7()}/members", UriKind.Relative),
-            TestContext.Current.CancellationToken);
 
         real.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.NotFound);
         invented.StatusCode.ShouldBe(real.StatusCode);
     }
 
+    // ---- Renaming ----
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The rename is read back from the list rather than from the response body, because the list is
+    /// what a member's screen is built from and it is assembled by different code. The slug is asserted
+    /// unchanged because it is unique only among live teams: a rename that moved it could take a slug an
+    /// archived team still holds, and that archived team could then never be brought back.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task RenamingATeam_ChangesTheListedNameAndLeavesTheSlugAlone()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("rename-owner");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Before");
+
+        var response = await owner.PutContractAsync(
+            TeamUrl(team.TeamId), new UpdateTeamRequest("After", "A description it did not have."));
+
+        response.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.OK);
+
+        var listed = await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>>(owner, TeamsUrl);
+        var renamed = listed.Where(row => row.TeamId == team.TeamId).ShouldHaveSingleItem();
+
+        renamed.Name.ShouldBe("After");
+        renamed.Description.ShouldBe("A description it did not have.");
+        renamed.Slug.ShouldBe(team.Slug);
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Null clears the description rather than leaving it alone. A PUT that treated an absent value as
+    /// "no change" would make a cleared description impossible to express at all, since there is no
+    /// other verb for it.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task RenamingWithoutADescription_ClearsTheOneThatWasThere()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("rename-clear-owner");
+
+        var team = await PostAsync<CreateTeamRequest, TeamSummary>(
+            owner,
+            TeamsUrl,
+            new CreateTeamRequest(
+                Guid.CreateVersion7(), "Described", $"team-{Guid.CreateVersion7():N}", "Something."));
+
+        team.Description.ShouldBe("Something.");
+
+        var response = await owner.PutContractAsync(
+            TeamUrl(team.TeamId), new UpdateTeamRequest("Described", null));
+
+        response.EnsureSuccessStatusCode();
+
+        var listed = await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>>(owner, TeamsUrl);
+
+        listed.Where(row => row.TeamId == team.TeamId)
+            .ShouldHaveSingleItem()
+            .Description.ShouldBeNull();
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// A member is refused with 403 rather than 404: the team is visible to them, so naming the reason
+    /// leaks nothing and "you are not an admin" is a more useful answer than "no such team".
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task APlainMember_CanRenameNothingAndCanNeitherArchiveNorHandOverTheTeam()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("member-limits-owner", "mlowner@example.com");
+        var member = await EnrolledClientAsync("member-limits-member", "mlmember@example.com");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Limits");
+        var entry = await LookupAsync(owner, "mlmember@example.com");
+        var memberMe = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(member, MeUrl);
+
+        await AddMemberAsync(owner, team.TeamId, entry.UserId, TeamMemberRole.Member);
+
+        var renamed = await member.PutContractAsync(
+            TeamUrl(team.TeamId), new UpdateTeamRequest("Theirs now", null));
+
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(renamed, HttpStatusCode.Forbidden, ProblemCodes.Forbidden);
+
+        var archived = await DeleteAsync(member, TeamUrl(team.TeamId));
+
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(archived, HttpStatusCode.Forbidden, ProblemCodes.Forbidden);
+
+        var transferred = await member.PostContractAsync(
+            OwnerUrl(team.TeamId), new TransferTeamOwnershipRequest(memberMe.UserId));
+
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(transferred, HttpStatusCode.Forbidden, ProblemCodes.Forbidden);
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <para>
+    /// <b>The <c>TeamAccess.IsOwner</c> boundary, and the most important authorization test in this
+    /// feature.</b> An admin may manage members and vaults, and that is deliberately not the same
+    /// permission as deciding whether the team continues to exist or who controls it. If either of
+    /// these checks were widened to <c>CanAdminister</c> — which is what every neighbouring endpoint
+    /// uses, so it is the easy mistake — anybody the owner promoted could archive the team out from
+    /// under them or take it outright, and nothing in the response of any other test would change.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// The rename is asserted in the same test on purpose: it is what shows the admin genuinely holds
+    /// administrative rights here, so the two refusals are the boundary rather than a broken role.
+    /// </para>
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task AnAdminWhoIsNotTheOwner_MayRenameButMayNotArchiveOrHandOverTheTeam()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("admin-boundary-owner", "abowner@example.com");
+        var admin = await EnrolledClientAsync("admin-boundary-admin", "abadmin@example.com");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Boundary");
+        var entry = await LookupAsync(owner, "abadmin@example.com");
+        var adminMe = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(admin, MeUrl);
+
+        await AddMemberAsync(owner, team.TeamId, entry.UserId, TeamMemberRole.Admin);
+
+        // They really are an admin: this one succeeds.
+        var renamed = await admin.PutContractAsync(
+            TeamUrl(team.TeamId), new UpdateTeamRequest("Renamed by an admin", null));
+
+        renamed.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.OK);
+
+        var archived = await DeleteAsync(admin, TeamUrl(team.TeamId));
+
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(archived, HttpStatusCode.Forbidden, ProblemCodes.Forbidden);
+
+        var transferred = await admin.PostContractAsync(
+            OwnerUrl(team.TeamId), new TransferTeamOwnershipRequest(adminMe.UserId));
+
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(transferred, HttpStatusCode.Forbidden, ProblemCodes.Forbidden);
+
+        // And nothing moved: the team is still there and still owned by the person who made it.
+        var members = await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamMemberSummary>>(
+            owner, MembersUrl(team.TeamId));
+
+        var ownerMe = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(owner, MeUrl);
+
+        members.Where(row => row.UserId == ownerMe.UserId)
+            .ShouldHaveSingleItem()
+            .Role.ShouldBe(TeamMemberRole.Owner);
+    }
+
+    // ---- Archiving ----
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Archiving hides a team from every member's list at once, and a team vault resolves through
+    /// membership — so archiving one that still owned vaults would take those vaults away from
+    /// everybody holding a key, including the caller, with no way back because nothing in this product
+    /// deletes a vault. The refusal is the end of that road rather than a step on it, which is why the
+    /// team is asserted still listed afterwards.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task ArchivingATeamThatOwnsAVault_IsRefusedAndLeavesTheTeamListed()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("archive-vault-owner");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Occupied");
+        await CreateVaultAsync(owner, team.TeamId);
+
+        var response = await DeleteAsync(owner, TeamUrl(team.TeamId));
+
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(response, HttpStatusCode.Conflict, ProblemCodes.TeamNotEmpty);
+
+        var listed = await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>>(owner, TeamsUrl);
+
+        listed.ShouldContain(row => row.TeamId == team.TeamId);
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Every member's list, not just the caller's. Memberships are archived with the team in the same
+    /// transaction, and a live membership pointing at an archived team would leave the other member
+    /// still seeing it — which is the shape a half-applied archive takes.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task ArchivingAnEmptyTeam_RemovesItFromEveryMembersList()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("archive-owner", "aowner@example.com");
+        var member = await EnrolledClientAsync("archive-member", "amember@example.com");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Wound up");
+        var entry = await LookupAsync(owner, "amember@example.com");
+
+        await AddMemberAsync(owner, team.TeamId, entry.UserId, TeamMemberRole.Member);
+
+        (await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>>(member, TeamsUrl))
+            .ShouldContain(row => row.TeamId == team.TeamId);
+
+        var response = await DeleteAsync(owner, TeamUrl(team.TeamId));
+
+        response.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.NoContent);
+
+        (await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>>(owner, TeamsUrl))
+            .ShouldNotContain(row => row.TeamId == team.TeamId);
+
+        (await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>>(member, TeamsUrl))
+            .ShouldNotContain(row => row.TeamId == team.TeamId);
+
+        // And it is gone the way a team nobody is in is gone, rather than merely unlisted.
+        (await GetAsync(owner, MembersUrl(team.TeamId))).StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.NotFound);
+    }
+
+    // ---- Ownership ----
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <b>Both roles, because either alone would pass while the team was broken.</b> Asserting only
+    /// that the recipient is now owner would pass with the team owned twice; asserting only that the
+    /// outgoing owner is an admin would pass with it owned by nobody. Ownership is sole and the two
+    /// writes are one transaction precisely so that neither of those states can exist, so the count of
+    /// owners is asserted too.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task TransferringOwnership_MakesTheTargetOwnerAndTheOutgoingOwnerAnAdmin()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("transfer-owner", "towner@example.com");
+        var successor = await EnrolledClientAsync("transfer-successor", "tsuccessor@example.com");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Handover");
+        var ownerMe = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(owner, MeUrl);
+        var entry = await LookupAsync(owner, "tsuccessor@example.com");
+
+        await AddMemberAsync(owner, team.TeamId, entry.UserId, TeamMemberRole.Member);
+
+        var response = await owner.PostContractAsync(
+            OwnerUrl(team.TeamId), new TransferTeamOwnershipRequest(entry.UserId));
+
+        response.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.NoContent);
+
+        var members = await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamMemberSummary>>(
+            owner, MembersUrl(team.TeamId));
+
+        members.Where(row => row.UserId == entry.UserId)
+            .ShouldHaveSingleItem()
+            .Role.ShouldBe(TeamMemberRole.Owner);
+
+        members.Where(row => row.UserId == ownerMe.UserId)
+            .ShouldHaveSingleItem()
+            .Role.ShouldBe(TeamMemberRole.Admin, "the outgoing owner is demoted, not removed");
+
+        members.Count(row => row.Role == TeamMemberRole.Owner).ShouldBe(1);
+
+        // And the recipient is told so by the endpoint their own screen reads.
+        (await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>>(successor, TeamsUrl))
+            .Where(row => row.TeamId == team.TeamId)
+            .ShouldHaveSingleItem()
+            .Role.ShouldBe(TeamMemberRole.Owner);
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The thing that was impossible before this endpoint existed. An owner could not be removed and
+    /// could not be demoted, so somebody who left the company owning a team left it owned by them for
+    /// ever — a state only an operator with database access could fix.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task AfterATransfer_TheFormerOwnerCanFinallyBeRemoved()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("departing-owner", "downer@example.com");
+        var successor = await EnrolledClientAsync("departing-successor", "dsuccessor@example.com");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Departure");
+        var ownerMe = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(owner, MeUrl);
+        var entry = await LookupAsync(owner, "dsuccessor@example.com");
+
+        await AddMemberAsync(owner, team.TeamId, entry.UserId, TeamMemberRole.Member);
+
+        var transferred = await owner.PostContractAsync(
+            OwnerUrl(team.TeamId), new TransferTeamOwnershipRequest(entry.UserId));
+
+        transferred.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.NoContent);
+
+        var removed = await DeleteAsync(successor, MemberUrl(team.TeamId, ownerMe.UserId));
+
+        removed.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.NoContent);
+
+        (await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>>(owner, TeamsUrl))
+            .ShouldNotContain(row => row.TeamId == team.TeamId);
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Adding somebody and handing them the team in one step would let an id supplied once take it, so
+    /// the recipient has to be an active member already. This is the same refusal that stops a stranger
+    /// being made owner by pasting their id.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task TransferringToSomebodyWhoIsNotAMember_IsRefused()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("transfer-closed-owner", "tcowner@example.com");
+        await EnrolledClientAsync("transfer-outsider", "toutsider@example.com");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Closed handover");
+        var entry = await LookupAsync(owner, "toutsider@example.com");
+
+        var response = await owner.PostContractAsync(
+            OwnerUrl(team.TeamId), new TransferTeamOwnershipRequest(entry.UserId));
+
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(response, HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ProblemCodes.InvalidTeam);
+    }
+
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task TransferringToYourself_IsRefused()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("transfer-self-owner");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Already mine");
+        var me = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(owner, MeUrl);
+
+        var response = await owner.PostContractAsync(
+            OwnerUrl(team.TeamId), new TransferTeamOwnershipRequest(me.UserId));
+
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(response, HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ProblemCodes.InvalidTeam);
+    }
+
+    // ---- Membership ----
+
     /// <remarks>
     /// The membership half of M3 in one test: a team vault appears in the other member's <c>/me</c> the
     /// moment they are added, and it appears <em>without</em> a wrapped key. That null is the whole
@@ -128,7 +441,7 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
 
         await AddMemberAsync(owner, team.TeamId, entry.UserId, TeamMemberRole.Member);
 
-        var me = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(member, "/api/v1/me");
+        var me = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(member, MeUrl);
         var vault = me.Vaults.SingleOrDefault(summary => summary.VaultId == vaultId);
 
         vault.ShouldNotBeNull("membership is what makes a team vault visible");
@@ -163,11 +476,7 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
         var push = await viewer.PostContractAsync(
             $"/api/v1/vaults/{vaultId}/sync/push", new SyncPushRequest([]));
 
-        push.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.Forbidden);
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(push, HttpStatusCode.Forbidden, ProblemCodes.Forbidden);
-
-        var problem = await push.Content.ReadProblemAsync();
-
-        problem.Code.ShouldBe(ProblemCodes.Forbidden);
     }
 
     /// <remarks>
@@ -187,16 +496,14 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
 
         await AddMemberAsync(owner, team.TeamId, entry.UserId, TeamMemberRole.Member);
 
-        var before = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(member, "/api/v1/me");
+        var before = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(member, MeUrl);
         before.Vaults.ShouldContain(summary => summary.VaultId == vaultId);
 
-        var removed = await owner.DeleteAsync(
+        var removed = await DeleteAsync(owner, MemberUrl(team.TeamId, entry.UserId));
-            new Uri($"{TeamsUrl}/{team.TeamId}/members/{entry.UserId}", UriKind.Relative),
-            TestContext.Current.CancellationToken);
 
         removed.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.NoContent);
 
-        var after = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(member, "/api/v1/me");
+        var after = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(member, MeUrl);
         after.Vaults.ShouldNotContain(summary => summary.VaultId == vaultId);
 
         var pull = await member.PostContractAsync(
@@ -223,9 +530,7 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
 
         await AddMemberAsync(owner, team.TeamId, entry.UserId, TeamMemberRole.Member);
 
-        await owner.DeleteAsync(
+        await DeleteAsync(owner, MemberUrl(team.TeamId, entry.UserId));
-            new Uri($"{TeamsUrl}/{team.TeamId}/members/{entry.UserId}", UriKind.Relative),
-            TestContext.Current.CancellationToken);
 
         var grants = await ReadAsync<VaultGrantsResponse>(owner, $"/api/v1/vaults/{vaultId}/grants");
 
@@ -233,9 +538,11 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
     }
 
     /// <remarks>
-    /// The owner cannot be removed or demoted, because nothing can appoint a replacement yet. Refused
+    /// The owner cannot be removed even now that ownership can be handed over, and this is the standing
-    /// with a code the client can act on rather than a bare 400, since "you cannot do that" and "you did
+    /// guarantee rather than a leftover: transferring is what makes the team's next owner exist, so
-    /// that wrong" lead somewhere different.
+    /// removing the current one first would still leave it with nobody who can manage it. Refused with a
+    /// code the client can act on rather than a bare 400, since "you cannot do that" and "you did that
+    /// wrong" lead somewhere different.
     /// </remarks>
     [Fact]
     public async Task TheOwner_CannotBeRemoved()
@@ -243,19 +550,328 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
         var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("sole-owner", "sole@example.com");
 
         var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Sole");
-        var me = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(owner, "/api/v1/me");
+        var me = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(owner, MeUrl);
 
-        var response = await owner.DeleteAsync(
+        var response = await DeleteAsync(owner, MemberUrl(team.TeamId, me.UserId));
-            new Uri($"{TeamsUrl}/{team.TeamId}/members/{me.UserId}", UriKind.Relative),
-            TestContext.Current.CancellationToken);
 
-        response.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.Conflict);
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(response, HttpStatusCode.Conflict, ProblemCodes.LastTeamOwner);
-
-        var problem = await response.Content.ReadProblemAsync();
-
-        problem.Code.ShouldBe(ProblemCodes.LastTeamOwner);
     }
 
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The other half of the same guarantee, and the one a transfer endpoint could plausibly have
+    /// loosened. Demoting the owner through the role endpoint cannot appoint a replacement in the same
+    /// breath, so it would leave the team ownerless — which is exactly the state
+    /// <c>TransferOwnershipAsync</c> does two writes in one transaction to avoid.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task TheOwner_CannotBeDemotedOnTheirOwn()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("demote-owner", "demote@example.com");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Undemotable");
+        var me = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(owner, MeUrl);
+
+        var response = await owner.PutContractAsync(
+            MemberRoleUrl(team.TeamId, me.UserId),
+            new ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest(TeamMemberRole.Admin));
+
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(response, HttpStatusCode.Conflict, ProblemCodes.LastTeamOwner);
+
+        var members = await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamMemberSummary>>(
+            owner, MembersUrl(team.TeamId));
+
+        members.Where(row => row.UserId == me.UserId)
+            .ShouldHaveSingleItem()
+            .Role.ShouldBe(TeamMemberRole.Owner);
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// A real value, not a placeholder. <c>LastActiveAt</c> is the field the teams screen uses to say
+    /// whether a colleague has been here at all, and the failure it guards against is the one that made
+    /// the column impossible to offer before: a null for somebody who has plainly been making requests
+    /// reads as "never", which is a lie about a person.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task AMemberListing_ReportsWhenAnAccountWasLastActive()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("last-seen-owner");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Last seen");
+        var me = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(owner, MeUrl);
+
+        var members = await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamMemberSummary>>(
+            owner, MembersUrl(team.TeamId));
+
+        var self = members.Where(row => row.UserId == me.UserId).ShouldHaveSingleItem();
+
+        self.LastActiveAt.ShouldNotBeNull(
+            "this account has made several authenticated requests already");
+
+        // Within the window the server writes on, which is the whole of the precision this carries.
+        self.LastActiveAt.Value.ShouldBeGreaterThan(TimeProvider.System.GetUtcNow().AddHours(-1));
+    }
+
+    // ---- Invitations ----
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The expiry is asserted rather than merely present. An invitation that never lapsed would be a
+    /// standing offer against an address, and company addresses are handed to the next person to hold
+    /// the job — so the person who inherits the mailbox would inherit the team.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task InvitingAnAddress_ListsItAsPendingWithItsRoleAndAnExpiry()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("invite-owner");
+        var address = NewAddress();
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Invitations");
+        var created = await InviteAsync(owner, team.TeamId, address, TeamMemberRole.Admin);
+
+        var listed = await FindInvitationAsync(owner, team.TeamId, created.InvitationId);
+
+        listed.Email.ShouldBe(address);
+        listed.Role.ShouldBe(TeamMemberRole.Admin);
+        listed.State.ShouldBe(TeamInvitationState.Pending);
+        listed.AcceptedAt.ShouldBeNull();
+        (listed.ExpiresAt - listed.CreatedAt).ShouldBe(TimeSpan.FromDays(14));
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The same body twice, as a client whose response was lost would send it — the shape team and
+    /// vault creation already have. Two invitations to one address would show the same person twice on
+    /// the teams screen and take two revocations to withdraw.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task RepeatingAnInvitation_ReturnsTheSameOneRatherThanASecond()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("invite-retry-owner");
+        var address = NewAddress();
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Retried invitations");
+
+        var request = new CreateTeamInvitationRequest(
+            Guid.CreateVersion7(), address, TeamMemberRole.Member);
+
+        var first = await PostAsync<CreateTeamInvitationRequest, TeamInvitationSummary>(
+            owner, InvitationsUrl(team.TeamId), request);
+
+        var second = await PostAsync<CreateTeamInvitationRequest, TeamInvitationSummary>(
+            owner, InvitationsUrl(team.TeamId), request);
+
+        second.InvitationId.ShouldBe(first.InvitationId);
+
+        var listed = await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamInvitationSummary>>(
+            owner, InvitationsUrl(team.TeamId));
+
+        // Case-insensitively, because the column is citext and two addresses differing only in case
+        // are one address — a second row under a different casing would still be a second invitation.
+        listed.Count(row => string.Equals(row.Email, address, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
+            .ShouldBe(1);
+    }
+
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task ASecondInvitationToTheSameAddress_IsRefused()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("invite-duplicate-owner");
+        var address = NewAddress();
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Duplicate invitations");
+
+        await InviteAsync(owner, team.TeamId, address);
+
+        // A different id, so this is a second invitation rather than a retry of the first.
+        var response = await owner.PostContractAsync(
+            InvitationsUrl(team.TeamId),
+            new CreateTeamInvitationRequest(Guid.CreateVersion7(), address, TeamMemberRole.Admin));
+
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(
+            response, HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ProblemCodes.InvalidTeamInvitation);
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Ownership is sole and is handed over deliberately. An invitation that conferred it would let an
+    /// address typed once take the team the moment somebody signed in with it — and the invitee is by
+    /// definition somebody nobody here has met.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task InvitingSomebodyAsOwner_IsRefused()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("invite-owner-role-owner");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Not for sale");
+
+        var response = await owner.PostContractAsync(
+            InvitationsUrl(team.TeamId),
+            new CreateTeamInvitationRequest(
+                Guid.CreateVersion7(), NewAddress(), TeamMemberRole.Owner));
+
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(
+            response, HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ProblemCodes.InvalidTeamInvitation);
+    }
+
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task AMalformedAddress_IsRefused()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("invite-malformed-owner");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Shapes");
+
+        var response = await owner.PostContractAsync(
+            InvitationsUrl(team.TeamId),
+            new CreateTeamInvitationRequest(
+                Guid.CreateVersion7(), "not an address", TeamMemberRole.Member));
+
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(
+            response, HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ProblemCodes.InvalidTeamInvitation);
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// A withdrawn invitation stays in the listing rather than vanishing, so the screen can show that it
+    /// was withdrawn rather than letting it read as never sent. Withdrawing it twice is 404, for the
+    /// reason revoking a device grant gives: a caller driving towards "that invitation will not let
+    /// anybody in" can treat 404 as having arrived.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task RevokingAnInvitation_MarksItRevokedAndCannotBeDoneTwice()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("invite-revoke-owner");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Withdrawals");
+        var invitation = await InviteAsync(owner, team.TeamId, NewAddress());
+
+        var revoked = await DeleteAsync(
+            owner, InvitationUrl(team.TeamId, invitation.InvitationId));
+
+        revoked.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.NoContent);
+
+        var listed = await FindInvitationAsync(owner, team.TeamId, invitation.InvitationId);
+
+        listed.State.ShouldBe(TeamInvitationState.Revoked);
+
+        var again = await DeleteAsync(owner, InvitationUrl(team.TeamId, invitation.InvitationId));
+
+        again.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.NotFound);
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// An invitation is a fact about the team, so any member may read the list — whoever is about to be
+    /// handed a vault key needs to see who else is on their way in — but only an admin may write one.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task APlainMember_MayReadInvitationsAndMayNotIssueThem()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("invite-reader-owner", "irowner@example.com");
+        var member = await EnrolledClientAsync("invite-reader-member", "irmember@example.com");
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Readable invitations");
+        var entry = await LookupAsync(owner, "irmember@example.com");
+
+        await AddMemberAsync(owner, team.TeamId, entry.UserId, TeamMemberRole.Member);
+
+        var invitation = await InviteAsync(owner, team.TeamId, NewAddress());
+
+        var listed = await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamInvitationSummary>>(
+            member, InvitationsUrl(team.TeamId));
+
+        listed.ShouldContain(row => row.InvitationId == invitation.InvitationId);
+
+        var refused = await member.PostContractAsync(
+            InvitationsUrl(team.TeamId),
+            new CreateTeamInvitationRequest(
+                Guid.CreateVersion7(), NewAddress(), TeamMemberRole.Member));
+
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(refused, HttpStatusCode.Forbidden, ProblemCodes.Forbidden);
+    }
+
+    // ---- Claiming an invitation at sign-in ----
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The heart of the feature, and the only path by which an invitation becomes anything. There is no
+    /// token and no mail: the row says "the next account to sign in with this address joins this team",
+    /// and just-in-time provisioning is what reads it. What it creates is a membership and not a key —
+    /// the vault key still has to be wrapped to them from a machine that holds one.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task SigningInWithAnInvitedAddress_JoinsTheTeamAndMarksTheInvitationAccepted()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("claim-owner");
+        var address = NewAddress();
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Claimed");
+        var invitation = await InviteAsync(owner, team.TeamId, address, TeamMemberRole.Member);
+
+        var (invitee, inviteeUserId) = await SignInAsync(address);
+
+        (await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>>(invitee, TeamsUrl))
+            .Where(row => row.TeamId == team.TeamId)
+            .ShouldHaveSingleItem()
+            .Role.ShouldBe(TeamMemberRole.Member);
+
+        var members = await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamMemberSummary>>(
+            owner, MembersUrl(team.TeamId));
+
+        var joined = members.Where(row => row.UserId == inviteeUserId).ShouldHaveSingleItem();
+
+        joined.Status.ShouldBe(TeamMemberStatus.Active);
+        joined.Role.ShouldBe(TeamMemberRole.Member);
+        joined.IsEnrolled.ShouldBeFalse("membership is authorization, and they hold no key yet");
+
+        var listed = await FindInvitationAsync(owner, team.TeamId, invitation.InvitationId);
+
+        listed.State.ShouldBe(TeamInvitationState.Accepted);
+        listed.AcceptedAt.ShouldNotBeNull();
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <b>The security test this feature stands on.</b> An invitation is authorization: claiming one is
+    /// what decides that this server will serve somebody a team's vaults. An address the identity
+    /// provider has not vouched for is an address anybody able to obtain a token can name, so an
+    /// unverified one must confer nothing — that is the same attack <c>AllowEmailLinking</c> exists to
+    /// refuse, arriving by a different door. The failure would be silent by construction: the account is
+    /// provisioned either way and every other part of the request succeeds, so nothing but this would
+    /// notice that the wrong person had walked into the team.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task AnAddressTheProviderHasNotVerified_ClaimsNothing()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("unverified-owner");
+        var address = NewAddress();
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Verified only");
+        var invitation = await InviteAsync(owner, team.TeamId, address);
+
+        var (impostor, _) = await SignInAsync(address, emailVerified: false);
+
+        (await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>>(impostor, TeamsUrl)).ShouldBeEmpty();
+
+        var listed = await FindInvitationAsync(owner, team.TeamId, invitation.InvitationId);
+
+        listed.State.ShouldBe(TeamInvitationState.Pending);
+        listed.AcceptedAt.ShouldBeNull();
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// A withdrawn invitation is withdrawn, which the claim path has to honour independently — it reads
+    /// the invitation table directly rather than going back through the endpoint that refused.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task SigningInAfterAnInvitationWasWithdrawn_JoinsNothing()
+    {
+        var owner = await EnrolledClientAsync("withdrawn-owner");
+        var address = NewAddress();
+
+        var team = await CreateTeamAsync(owner, "Withdrawn");
+        var invitation = await InviteAsync(owner, team.TeamId, address);
+
+        await DeleteAsync(owner, InvitationUrl(team.TeamId, invitation.InvitationId));
+
+        var (invitee, _) = await SignInAsync(address);
+
+        (await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>>(invitee, TeamsUrl)).ShouldBeEmpty();
+    }
+
+    // ---- Vault key grants ----
+
     /// <remarks>
     /// A grant to somebody outside the team is refused. It would be a row that looks like sharing and
     /// does nothing, because the access check will go on refusing them the vault — and a sharing screen
@@ -283,11 +899,8 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
                 GrantSignature: new byte[64],
                 GrantedAt: DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch));
 
-        response.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest);
+        await ShouldBeProblemAsync(
-
+            response, HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ProblemCodes.InvalidVaultGrant);
-        var problem = await response.Content.ReadProblemAsync();
-
-        problem.Code.ShouldBe(ProblemCodes.InvalidVaultGrant);
     }
 
     /// <remarks>
@@ -323,6 +936,8 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
         response.StatusCode.ShouldBe(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest);
     }
 
+    // ---- The directory and the key log ----
+
     /// <remarks>
     /// The directory has no search. Asserting it rather than trusting the implementation, because a
     /// prefix match added later for convenience turns a server that stores addresses in plaintext into a
@@ -394,6 +1009,29 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
         }
     }
 
+    // ---- Helpers ----
+
+    private static string TeamUrl(Guid teamId) => $"{TeamsUrl}/{teamId}";
+
+    private static string OwnerUrl(Guid teamId) => $"{TeamsUrl}/{teamId}/owner";
+
+    private static string MembersUrl(Guid teamId) => $"{TeamsUrl}/{teamId}/members";
+
+    private static string MemberUrl(Guid teamId, Guid userId) => $"{MembersUrl(teamId)}/{userId}";
+
+    private static string MemberRoleUrl(Guid teamId, Guid userId) =>
+        $"{MemberUrl(teamId, userId)}/role";
+
+    private static string InvitationsUrl(Guid teamId) => $"{TeamsUrl}/{teamId}/invitations";
+
+    private static string InvitationUrl(Guid teamId, Guid invitationId) =>
+        $"{InvitationsUrl(teamId)}/{invitationId}";
+
+    private static string TeamVaultsUrl(Guid teamId) => $"{TeamsUrl}/{teamId}/vaults";
+
+    /// <summary>An address no account holds, uniquified because the container is shared.</summary>
+    private static string NewAddress() => $"invitee-{Guid.CreateVersion7():N}@example.com";
+
     private async Task<HttpClient> EnrolledClientAsync(string subject, string? email = null)
     {
         var unique = $"{subject}-{Guid.CreateVersion7():N}";
@@ -416,6 +1054,24 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
         return client;
     }
 
+    /// <summary>Signs a brand-new account in, which is what claims any invitation to its address.</summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// No enrollment, because an invitee has no key and the claim path must not need one — requiring it
+    /// would be requiring it of exactly the person who cannot yet supply it. Driving <c>/me</c> is what
+    /// runs just-in-time provisioning, and provisioning is where the claim happens.
+    /// </remarks>
+    private async Task<(HttpClient Client, Guid UserId)> SignInAsync(
+        string email,
+        bool emailVerified = true)
+    {
+        var client = fixture.CreateClientFor(
+            $"invitee-{Guid.CreateVersion7():N}", email, emailVerified);
+
+        var me = await ReadAsync<MeResponse>(client, MeUrl);
+
+        return (client, me.UserId);
+    }
+
     /// <summary>Uniquified addresses, keyed on the readable one a test wrote.</summary>
     private readonly Dictionary<string, string> addresses = new(StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
 
@@ -425,7 +1081,7 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
     /// transformation the product does not perform. It is uniquified because the container is shared
     /// across every class in this assembly and the slug is unique deployment-wide.
     /// </remarks>
-    private Task<TeamSummary> CreateTeamAsync(HttpClient client, string name) =>
+    private static Task<TeamSummary> CreateTeamAsync(HttpClient client, string name) =>
         PostAsync<CreateTeamRequest, TeamSummary>(
             client,
             TeamsUrl,
@@ -437,11 +1093,11 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
     /// opaquely and verifies neither — see docs/crypto.md §6 — so a real seal here would be testing the
     /// crypto library rather than the endpoint.
     /// </remarks>
-    private async Task<Guid> CreateVaultAsync(HttpClient client, Guid teamId)
+    private static async Task<Guid> CreateVaultAsync(HttpClient client, Guid teamId)
     {
         var vault = await PostAsync<CreateTeamVaultRequest, VaultSummary>(
             client,
-            $"{TeamsUrl}/{teamId}/vaults",
+            TeamVaultsUrl(teamId),
             new CreateTeamVaultRequest(
                 Guid.CreateVersion7(),
                 "Team vault",
@@ -469,11 +1125,37 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
         TeamMemberRole role)
     {
         var response = await client.PostContractAsync(
-            $"{TeamsUrl}/{teamId}/members", new AddTeamMemberRequest(userId, role));
+            MembersUrl(teamId), new AddTeamMemberRequest(userId, role));
 
         response.EnsureSuccessStatusCode();
     }
 
+    private static Task<TeamInvitationSummary> InviteAsync(
+        HttpClient client,
+        Guid teamId,
+        string email,
+        TeamMemberRole role = TeamMemberRole.Member) =>
+        PostAsync<CreateTeamInvitationRequest, TeamInvitationSummary>(
+            client,
+            InvitationsUrl(teamId),
+            new CreateTeamInvitationRequest(Guid.CreateVersion7(), email, role));
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Filtered by id rather than taken from a position in the list, because the container is shared and
+    /// every other class's invitations are in the same table. A count over the whole listing would pass
+    /// or fail depending on what else ran.
+    /// </remarks>
+    private static async Task<TeamInvitationSummary> FindInvitationAsync(
+        HttpClient client,
+        Guid teamId,
+        Guid invitationId)
+    {
+        var listed = await ReadAsync<IReadOnlyList<TeamInvitationSummary>>(
+            client, InvitationsUrl(teamId));
+
+        return listed.Where(row => row.InvitationId == invitationId).ShouldHaveSingleItem();
+    }
+
     private static async Task<TResponse> PostAsync<TRequest, TResponse>(
         HttpClient client,
         string url,
@@ -488,11 +1170,32 @@ public sealed class TeamEndpointTests(ApiFixture fixture)
 
     private static async Task<T> ReadAsync<T>(HttpClient client, string url)
     {
-        var response = await client.GetAsync(
+        var response = await GetAsync(client, url);
-            new Uri(url, UriKind.Relative), TestContext.Current.CancellationToken);
 
         response.EnsureSuccessStatusCode();
 
         return (await response.Content.ReadContractAsync<T>())!;
     }
+
+    private static Task<HttpResponseMessage> GetAsync(HttpClient client, string url) =>
+        client.GetAsync(new Uri(url, UriKind.Relative), TestContext.Current.CancellationToken);
+
+    private static Task<HttpResponseMessage> DeleteAsync(HttpClient client, string url) =>
+        client.DeleteAsync(new Uri(url, UriKind.Relative), TestContext.Current.CancellationToken);
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Asserts on the <c>code</c> extension and never on the prose, for the reason
+    /// <see cref="JsonProblem"/> gives: the code is the contract and the wording is not.
+    /// </remarks>
+    private static async Task ShouldBeProblemAsync(
+        HttpResponseMessage response,
+        HttpStatusCode expectedStatus,
+        string expectedCode)
+    {
+        response.StatusCode.ShouldBe(expectedStatus);
+
+        var problem = await response.Content.ReadProblemAsync();
+        problem.ShouldNotBeNull();
+        problem.Code.ShouldBe(expectedCode);
+    }
 }

tests/DodoSSH.Client.App.Layout.Tests/ScreenLayoutTests.cs

@@ -1403,6 +1403,88 @@ public sealed class ScreenLayoutTests : IAsyncLifetime
             failure)));
 
     /// <summary>Lays the vault screen out at the width it gets once the nav rail has taken its column.</summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <para>
+    /// The teams screen had no entry in this suite at all until it grew four sections — a rename form, an
+    /// armed confirmation, an invitations list and a key-holders list — plus a second line in the member
+    /// row. Its right-hand column is the narrowest measured here: the window's minimum is 1016, the nav
+    /// rail takes 190 and the team list 268, leaving 558 for everything above.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// Every list is seeded, and seeded with the long rows rather than the convenient ones — see
+    /// <see cref="StubTeamServer"/>. The two states that hide half the screen, the rename form and the
+    /// confirmation, are measured in their own tests below rather than here, because a control that is
+    /// collapsed when the window is laid out is a control this suite has not checked.
+    /// </para>
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public Task TheTeamsScreen_FitsWithEveryListPopulated() =>
+        OnTheTeamsScreenAsync(
+            teams => { },
+            window => LayoutHarness.Unreachable(window)
+                .ShouldBeEmpty("the teams screen with members, invitations and key holders"));
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The rename form is drawn in place, above the members list, and pushes everything below it down.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public Task TheTeamsScreen_FitsWhileRenamingATeam() =>
+        OnTheTeamsScreenAsync(
+            teams => teams.RenameTeamCommand.Execute(null),
+            window => LayoutHarness.Unreachable(window)
+                .ShouldBeEmpty("the teams screen with the rename form open"));
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The armed confirmation carries two sentences of prose and replaces the header's buttons. It is the
+    /// tallest thing that can appear above the members list, so it is the case most likely to push the
+    /// key-holders list off the bottom.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public Task TheTeamsScreen_FitsWhileConfirmingAnArchive() =>
+        OnTheTeamsScreenAsync(
+            teams => teams.ArchiveTeamCommand.Execute(null),
+            window => LayoutHarness.Unreachable(window)
+                .ShouldBeEmpty("the teams screen with the archive confirmation armed"));
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// A real <c>TeamsViewModel</c> over a stub server rather than the unlocked vault the rest of this
+    /// suite uses, because nothing on this screen is vault content: it is read from the server on open.
+    /// The session function answers null, which is the state a member is in before anybody has wrapped
+    /// them a key — and it is also the one that draws the most text, since every vault row then carries
+    /// the "waiting for a key" sentence.
+    /// </remarks>
+    private static async Task OnTheTeamsScreenAsync(
+        Action<TeamsViewModel> arrange,
+        Action<Window> assert)
+    {
+        using var teamServer = new StubTeamServer();
+
+        var teams = new TeamsViewModel(() => teamServer, () => null);
+
+        await teams.LoadAsync(Token);
+
+        await LayoutHarness.OnTheUiThreadAsync(
+            () =>
+            {
+                arrange(teams);
+
+                var screen = new TeamsScreen { DataContext = teams };
+
+                var window = LayoutHarness.HostAtMinimumSize(
+                    screen, LayoutHarness.ScreenWidth, LayoutHarness.ScreenHeight);
+
+                try
+                {
+                    assert(window);
+                }
+                finally
+                {
+                    window.Close();
+                }
+            },
+            Token);
+    }
+
     private Task MeasureVaultAsync(Action<IReadOnlyList<string>> assert) =>
         OnTheVaultAsync((_, window) => assert(LayoutHarness.Unreachable(window)));
 

tests/DodoSSH.Client.App.Layout.Tests/StubTeamServer.cs

@@ -0,0 +1,235 @@
+using DodoSSH.Client.Api;
+using DodoSSH.Client.Auth;
+using DodoSSH.Client.Session;
+using DodoSSH.Client.Sync;
+using DodoSSH.Contracts;
+
+namespace DodoSSH.Client.App.Layout.Tests;
+
+/// <summary>
+/// The least server a <c>TeamsViewModel</c> needs in order to be laid out with something in it.
+/// </summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// <para>
+/// The teams screen is the one screen in this suite whose content cannot come from an unlocked vault,
+/// because none of it is vault content: a team, its members, its invitations and who holds a key to a
+/// vault are all read from the server on open, and the suite's <c>FakeAccountServer</c> implements
+/// <see cref="IAccountApi"/> and nothing else. Rather than teach that fake five more interfaces for one
+/// screen, this serves fixed rows and refuses everything a layout test has no business calling.
+/// </para>
+/// <para>
+/// The rows are deliberately the <em>long</em> ones. A layout suite that measured "Bob" in a column sized
+/// for an email address would certify a shape no real team produces — so the names, addresses and status
+/// sentences here are at or near the length the interface can really be handed, which is what makes an
+/// overflow show up at the minimum window rather than on somebody's screen.
+/// </para>
+/// </remarks>
+internal sealed class StubTeamServer : IVaultServer, ITeamApi, IVaultGrantApi
+{
+    private static readonly Guid OwnerId = Guid.CreateVersion7();
+    private static readonly Guid ColleagueId = Guid.CreateVersion7();
+    private static readonly Guid TeamId = Guid.CreateVersion7();
+    private static readonly Guid VaultId = Guid.CreateVersion7();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Uri ServerUrl { get; } = new("https://dodossh.example");
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public ITeamApi Teams => this;
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public IVaultGrantApi Grants => this;
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public IAccountApi Account => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public ISyncApi Sync => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public IDirectoryApi Directory => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public IKeyBindingAuthorizer KeyBinding => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public SyncOptions SyncOptions => new();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public string? RefreshToken => null;
+
+    /// <summary>The vault whose key holders are listed, so a test can select it.</summary>
+    internal static Guid TeamVaultId => VaultId;
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>> ListTeamsAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        Task.FromResult<IReadOnlyList<TeamSummary>>(
+        [
+            new TeamSummary(
+                TeamId,
+                "Platform Engineering",
+                "platform-engineering",
+                "Everything that runs the estate.",
+                TeamMemberRole.Owner,
+                MemberCount: 2,
+                VaultCount: 1,
+                DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch),
+        ]);
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<IReadOnlyList<TeamMemberSummary>> ListTeamMembersAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        Task.FromResult<IReadOnlyList<TeamMemberSummary>>(
+        [
+            new TeamMemberSummary(
+                OwnerId,
+                "alexandra.hollingsworth@dodotech.example",
+                "Alexandra Hollingsworth",
+                TeamMemberRole.Owner,
+                TeamMemberStatus.Active,
+                IsEnrolled: true,
+                DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch,
+                DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch),
+
+            // The unenrolled case on purpose: its key-state phrase is the longest the column ever
+            // carries, and it is the row that decides whether that column is wide enough.
+            new TeamMemberSummary(
+                ColleagueId,
+                "bartholomew.fotheringay@dodotech.example",
+                "Bartholomew Fotheringay",
+                TeamMemberRole.Member,
+                TeamMemberStatus.Active,
+                IsEnrolled: false,
+                DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch,
+                LastActiveAt: null),
+        ]);
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<IReadOnlyList<TeamInvitationSummary>> ListTeamInvitationsAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        Task.FromResult<IReadOnlyList<TeamInvitationSummary>>(
+        [
+            // Pending, because its sentence is the long one — it has to carry the whole mechanism,
+            // since nothing was sent and there is nothing else on the screen that could say so.
+            new TeamInvitationSummary(
+                Guid.CreateVersion7(),
+                "wilhelmina.ashworth-blake@dodotech.example",
+                TeamMemberRole.Admin,
+                TeamInvitationState.Pending,
+                OwnerId,
+                DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch,
+                DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch.AddDays(14),
+                AcceptedAt: null),
+        ]);
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<VaultGrantsResponse> ListVaultGrantsAsync(
+        Guid vaultId,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        Task.FromResult(new VaultGrantsResponse(
+            vaultId,
+            KeyGeneration: 2,
+            RekeyRequired: true,
+            Grants:
+            [
+                new VaultGrantSummary(
+                    OwnerId,
+                    "alexandra.hollingsworth@dodotech.example",
+                    "Alexandra Hollingsworth",
+                    KeyGeneration: 2,
+                    VaultGrantState.Active,
+                    OwnerId,
+                    DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch,
+                    RevokedAt: null),
+
+                // A generation behind, so the "stale" phrasing is the one being measured rather than
+                // the two-word happy case.
+                new VaultGrantSummary(
+                    ColleagueId,
+                    "bartholomew.fotheringay@dodotech.example",
+                    "Bartholomew Fotheringay",
+                    KeyGeneration: 1,
+                    VaultGrantState.Active,
+                    OwnerId,
+                    DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch,
+                    RevokedAt: null),
+            ]));
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<TeamSummary> CreateTeamAsync(
+        CreateTeamRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<TeamSummary> UpdateTeamAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        UpdateTeamRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<bool> ArchiveTeamAsync(Guid teamId, CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task TransferTeamOwnershipAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        TransferTeamOwnershipRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<TeamMemberSummary> AddTeamMemberAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        AddTeamMemberRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<TeamMemberSummary> ChangeTeamMemberRoleAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        Guid userId,
+        ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<bool> RemoveTeamMemberAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        Guid userId,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<TeamInvitationSummary> CreateTeamInvitationAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        CreateTeamInvitationRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<bool> RevokeTeamInvitationAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        Guid invitationId,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<VaultSummary> CreateTeamVaultAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        CreateTeamVaultRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task IssueVaultGrantAsync(
+        Guid vaultId,
+        IssueVaultGrantRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<bool> RevokeVaultGrantAsync(
+        Guid vaultId,
+        Guid userId,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) => throw new NotSupportedException();
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public void Dispose()
+    {
+        // Nothing held.
+    }
+}

tests/DodoSSH.Client.App.Tests/FakeVaultServer.Teams.cs

@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ internal sealed partial class FakeVaultServer : ITeamApi, IDirectoryApi, IVaultG
     private readonly Dictionary<(Guid VaultId, Guid UserId), IssueVaultGrantRequest> grants = [];
     private readonly List<KeyLogRecord> keyLog = [];
     private readonly List<DirectoryEntry> directory = [];
+    private readonly Dictionary<Guid, List<TeamInvitationSummary>> invitations = [];
 
     /// <inheritdoc />
     public ITeamApi Teams => this;
@@ -107,12 +108,110 @@ internal sealed partial class FakeVaultServer : ITeamApi, IDirectoryApi, IVaultG
                 TeamMemberRole.Owner,
                 TeamMemberStatus.Active,
                 IsEnrolled: true,
+                DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch,
                 DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch),
         ];
 
         return Task.FromResult(team);
     }
 
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<TeamSummary> UpdateTeamAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        UpdateTeamRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        var index = teams.FindIndex(team => team.TeamId == teamId);
+
+        if (index < 0)
+        {
+            throw new DodoSshApiException(
+                System.Net.HttpStatusCode.NotFound, ProblemCodes.InvalidTeam, "No such team.");
+        }
+
+        // The slug is deliberately not touched, matching the server: a rename changes the display
+        // name only. A fake that also moved the slug would let a test assert behaviour nothing has.
+        teams[index] = teams[index] with
+        {
+            Name = request.Name,
+            Description = request.Description,
+        };
+
+        return Task.FromResult(teams[index]);
+    }
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The vault refusal is reproduced rather than skipped, unlike the other server rules here. It is
+    /// the one whose consequence the shell has to render — a status line explaining why nothing
+    /// happened — so a fake that always succeeded would leave that path untested.
+    /// </remarks>
+    public Task<bool> ArchiveTeamAsync(Guid teamId, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        var index = teams.FindIndex(team => team.TeamId == teamId);
+
+        if (index < 0)
+        {
+            return Task.FromResult(false);
+        }
+
+        if (teamVaults.Values.Any(vault => vault.TeamId == teamId))
+        {
+            throw new DodoSshApiException(
+                System.Net.HttpStatusCode.Conflict,
+                ProblemCodes.TeamNotEmpty,
+                "This team still owns vaults, and archiving it would take them away from everybody "
+                + "holding a key — including you.");
+        }
+
+        teams.RemoveAt(index);
+        members.Remove(teamId);
+        invitations.Remove(teamId);
+
+        return Task.FromResult(true);
+    }
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Both rows move, because a fake that only promoted the recipient would let a test pass while
+    /// the team was owned twice — which is the exact failure the real service uses a transaction to
+    /// make impossible.
+    /// </remarks>
+    public Task TransferTeamOwnershipAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        TransferTeamOwnershipRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        var list = members.GetValueOrDefault(teamId, []);
+        var incoming = list.FindIndex(member => member.UserId == request.UserId);
+
+        if (incoming < 0)
+        {
+            throw new DodoSshApiException(
+                System.Net.HttpStatusCode.BadRequest,
+                ProblemCodes.InvalidTeam,
+                "That account is not an active member of this team.");
+        }
+
+        var outgoing = list.FindIndex(member => member.Role == TeamMemberRole.Owner);
+
+        list[incoming] = list[incoming] with { Role = TeamMemberRole.Owner };
+
+        if (outgoing >= 0)
+        {
+            list[outgoing] = list[outgoing] with { Role = TeamMemberRole.Admin };
+        }
+
+        var index = teams.FindIndex(team => team.TeamId == teamId);
+
+        if (index >= 0)
+        {
+            teams[index] = teams[index] with { Role = TeamMemberRole.Admin };
+        }
+
+        return Task.CompletedTask;
+    }
+
     /// <inheritdoc />
     public Task<IReadOnlyList<TeamMemberSummary>> ListTeamMembersAsync(
         Guid teamId,
@@ -132,6 +231,8 @@ internal sealed partial class FakeVaultServer : ITeamApi, IDirectoryApi, IVaultG
                 ProblemCodes.InvalidTeam,
                 "No such account on this server.");
 
+        // LastActiveAt is left null: this account has been added, not seen. The owner's row carries a
+        // real one, so both branches of the interface's "last active / never" split are exercised.
         var member = new TeamMemberSummary(
             entry.UserId,
             entry.Email,
@@ -139,7 +240,8 @@ internal sealed partial class FakeVaultServer : ITeamApi, IDirectoryApi, IVaultG
             request.Role,
             TeamMemberStatus.Active,
             IsEnrolled: true,
-            DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch);
+            DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch,
+            LastActiveAt: null);
 
         members[teamId] = [.. members.GetValueOrDefault(teamId, []), member];
 
@@ -148,6 +250,69 @@ internal sealed partial class FakeVaultServer : ITeamApi, IDirectoryApi, IVaultG
         return Task.FromResult(member);
     }
 
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<IReadOnlyList<TeamInvitationSummary>> ListTeamInvitationsAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken) =>
+        Task.FromResult<IReadOnlyList<TeamInvitationSummary>>(
+            invitations.TryGetValue(teamId, out var list) ? [.. list] : []);
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<TeamInvitationSummary> CreateTeamInvitationAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        CreateTeamInvitationRequest request,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        var list = invitations.GetValueOrDefault(teamId, []);
+
+        if (list.Exists(invitation =>
+            invitation.State == TeamInvitationState.Pending
+            && string.Equals(invitation.Email, request.Email, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)))
+        {
+            throw new DodoSshApiException(
+                System.Net.HttpStatusCode.BadRequest,
+                ProblemCodes.InvalidTeamInvitation,
+                "There is already an invitation to that address for this team.");
+        }
+
+        var invited = new TeamInvitationSummary(
+            request.InvitationId,
+            request.Email,
+            request.Role,
+            TeamInvitationState.Pending,
+            UserId,
+            DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch,
+            DateTimeOffset.UnixEpoch.AddDays(14),
+            AcceptedAt: null);
+
+        invitations[teamId] = [.. list, invited];
+
+        return Task.FromResult(invited);
+    }
+
+    /// <inheritdoc />
+    public Task<bool> RevokeTeamInvitationAsync(
+        Guid teamId,
+        Guid invitationId,
+        CancellationToken cancellationToken)
+    {
+        var list = invitations.GetValueOrDefault(teamId, []);
+        var index = list.FindIndex(invitation =>
+            invitation.InvitationId == invitationId
+            && invitation.State == TeamInvitationState.Pending);
+
+        if (index < 0)
+        {
+            return Task.FromResult(false);
+        }
+
+        // Kept and marked rather than removed, as the server keeps it: the screen has to be able to
+        // say an invitation was withdrawn rather than letting it vanish and read as never sent.
+        list[index] = list[index] with { State = TeamInvitationState.Revoked };
+
+        return Task.FromResult(true);
+    }
+
     /// <inheritdoc />
     public Task<TeamMemberSummary> ChangeTeamMemberRoleAsync(
         Guid teamId,

tests/DodoSSH.Client.App.Tests/TeamSharingTests.cs

@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ using DodoSSH.Client.Shell.ViewModels;
 using DodoSSH.Client.Ssh;
 using DodoSSH.Client.Storage;
 using DodoSSH.Client.Terminal;
+using DodoSSH.Contracts;
 using DodoSSH.Crypto;
 
 namespace DodoSSH.Client.App.Tests;
@@ -273,6 +274,259 @@ public sealed class TeamSharingTests : IAsyncLifetime
             .ShouldBe("eu-west-1", "a tag that is not in the list is a tag nothing can reach");
     }
 
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The screen's answer to "who can actually open this", which until now it could not give at all —
+    /// the endpoint existed and nothing called it. Asserted after a share rather than before, because
+    /// an empty list proves nothing about whether the call was made.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task SelectingATeamVault_ListsWhoHoldsAKeyToIt()
+    {
+        await UnlockedAsync();
+
+        var teams = shell.Teams;
+        var colleague = server.AddAccount("bob@example.com", "Bob Example");
+
+        await CreateTeamAsync(teams, "Platform", "platform");
+        await teams.CreateVaultCommand.ExecuteAsync(null);
+
+        teams.InviteEmail = "bob@example.com";
+        await teams.AddMemberCommand.ExecuteAsync(null);
+
+        teams.SelectedMember = teams.Members.Single(member => member.UserId == colleague);
+        teams.SelectedVault = teams.Vaults[0];
+
+        await teams.ShareVaultCommand.ExecuteAsync(null);
+
+        // Selecting the vault again is what drives the read; the share above happened after the
+        // previous selection had already loaded an empty list.
+        teams.SelectedVault = null;
+        teams.SelectedVault = teams.Vaults[0];
+
+        var holder = teams.Grants.ShouldHaveSingleItem();
+
+        holder.UserId.ShouldBe(colleague);
+        holder.IsLive.ShouldBeTrue(teams.Status);
+        holder.State.ShouldBe("holds a key");
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// A role change is authorization only. The status line has to say so, because the obvious reading
+    /// of "demoted to viewer" is that they can no longer read the vault — and they still can, with the
+    /// key they were already wrapped. Withdrawing that is a separate act.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task ChangingAMembersRole_SaysItDoesNotTakeBackTheKeyTheyHold()
+    {
+        await UnlockedAsync();
+
+        var teams = shell.Teams;
+        var colleague = server.AddAccount("bob@example.com", "Bob Example");
+
+        await CreateTeamAsync(teams, "Platform", "platform");
+
+        teams.InviteEmail = "bob@example.com";
+        await teams.AddMemberCommand.ExecuteAsync(null);
+
+        teams.SelectedMember = teams.Members.Single(member => member.UserId == colleague);
+
+        await teams.ChangeRoleCommand.ExecuteAsync(TeamMemberRole.Admin);
+
+        teams.Members.Single(member => member.UserId == colleague).Role.ShouldBe("ADMIN");
+        teams.Status.ShouldContain("does not withdraw a vault key");
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The owner's role is the one that cannot be changed this way, and the interface has to refuse it
+    /// itself rather than letting the server do it: a button that produced a server error would be
+    /// reporting a rule the screen already knew.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task MakingSomebodyOwnerThroughTheRolePicker_IsRefusedAndPointsAtHandingOver()
+    {
+        await UnlockedAsync();
+
+        var teams = shell.Teams;
+        var colleague = server.AddAccount("bob@example.com", "Bob Example");
+
+        await CreateTeamAsync(teams, "Platform", "platform");
+
+        teams.InviteEmail = "bob@example.com";
+        await teams.AddMemberCommand.ExecuteAsync(null);
+
+        teams.SelectedMember = teams.Members.Single(member => member.UserId == colleague);
+
+        await teams.ChangeRoleCommand.ExecuteAsync(TeamMemberRole.Owner);
+
+        teams.Members.Single(member => member.UserId == colleague).Role.ShouldBe("MEMBER");
+        teams.Status.ShouldContain("HAND OVER");
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <para>
+    /// Both halves, because a transfer that only promoted the recipient would leave the team owned
+    /// twice and a test asserting one role would pass anyway. That is the exact failure the server uses
+    /// a single transaction to make impossible, so the client test asserts the same pair.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// It also goes through the armed confirmation rather than calling the command directly, since
+    /// arming and confirming are where the target id is carried — and carrying it on the selection
+    /// instead is how a confirmation ends up applied to whatever was clicked last.
+    /// </para>
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task HandingOverATeam_MakesThemTheOwnerAndTheCallerAnAdmin()
+    {
+        await UnlockedAsync();
+
+        var teams = shell.Teams;
+        var colleague = server.AddAccount("bob@example.com", "Bob Example");
+
+        await CreateTeamAsync(teams, "Platform", "platform");
+
+        teams.InviteEmail = "bob@example.com";
+        await teams.AddMemberCommand.ExecuteAsync(null);
+
+        teams.SelectedMember = teams.Members.Single(member => member.UserId == colleague);
+
+        teams.TransferOwnershipCommand.Execute(null);
+
+        teams.IsConfirming.ShouldBeTrue("the hand-over has to be answered, not just pressed");
+        teams.ShowsTeamActions.ShouldBeFalse("the buttons that armed it are replaced, not left live");
+
+        await teams.ConfirmActionCommand.ExecuteAsync(null);
+
+        teams.Members.Single(member => member.UserId == colleague).Role.ShouldBe("OWNER");
+        teams.Members.Single(member => member.IsSelf).Role.ShouldBe("ADMIN");
+        teams.IsConfirming.ShouldBeFalse();
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Archiving is refused while the team owns a vault, and the refusal has to reach the screen. The
+    /// failure this guards is the quiet one: a client that swallowed the 409 and reloaded would show a
+    /// team that is still there with no explanation of why nothing happened.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task ArchivingATeamThatOwnsAVault_IsRefusedAndSaysWhy()
+    {
+        await UnlockedAsync();
+
+        var teams = shell.Teams;
+
+        await CreateTeamAsync(teams, "Platform", "platform");
+        await teams.CreateVaultCommand.ExecuteAsync(null);
+
+        teams.ArchiveTeamCommand.Execute(null);
+        await teams.ConfirmActionCommand.ExecuteAsync(null);
+
+        teams.Teams.ShouldContain(team => team.Slug == "platform");
+        teams.Status.ShouldContain("holding a key");
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// An empty team can go, and this is the only operation on the screen that removes something from
+    /// everybody's list at once.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task ArchivingAnEmptyTeam_RemovesIt()
+    {
+        await UnlockedAsync();
+
+        var teams = shell.Teams;
+
+        await CreateTeamAsync(teams, "Platform", "platform");
+
+        teams.ArchiveTeamCommand.Execute(null);
+        await teams.ConfirmActionCommand.ExecuteAsync(null);
+
+        teams.Teams.ShouldNotContain(team => team.Slug == "platform");
+        teams.Status.ShouldContain("Archived");
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Renaming leaves the slug alone, and the status line says so unprompted — somebody who assumed
+    /// otherwise would find out from a URL much later, which is the worst moment to find out.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task RenamingATeam_LeavesItsSlugAlone()
+    {
+        await UnlockedAsync();
+
+        var teams = shell.Teams;
+
+        await CreateTeamAsync(teams, "Platform", "platform");
+
+        teams.RenameTeamCommand.Execute(null);
+        teams.EditTeamName = "Platform Engineering";
+
+        await teams.SaveTeamCommand.ExecuteAsync(null);
+
+        var team = teams.Teams.ShouldHaveSingleItem();
+
+        team.Name.ShouldBe("Platform Engineering");
+        team.Slug.ShouldBe("platform");
+        teams.Status.ShouldContain("slug is still 'platform'");
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <para>
+    /// The address the directory does not know used to be a dead end — the screen said they had to sign
+    /// in first and stopped. It invites them instead, from the same button, because which of the two
+    /// applies is a fact about the server's account table rather than about what the user is doing.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// The status assertion is the point of the test. Nothing is sent, and an interface that said
+    /// "invited" without saying that would leave somebody waiting for an email that is never coming.
+    /// </para>
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task AddingAnAddressWithNoAccount_InvitesItAndSaysNothingWasSent()
+    {
+        await UnlockedAsync();
+
+        var teams = shell.Teams;
+
+        await CreateTeamAsync(teams, "Platform", "platform");
+
+        teams.InviteEmail = "newcomer@example.com";
+        await teams.AddMemberCommand.ExecuteAsync(null);
+
+        teams.Members.ShouldHaveSingleItem("nobody has joined — they have only been invited");
+
+        var invitation = teams.Invitations.ShouldHaveSingleItem();
+
+        invitation.Email.ShouldBe("newcomer@example.com");
+        invitation.IsPending.ShouldBeTrue();
+        invitation.State.ShouldContain("Nothing was sent");
+
+        teams.Status.ShouldContain("cannot send mail");
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// A withdrawn invitation stays on the list saying it was withdrawn, rather than vanishing. One that
+    /// disappeared would read as never having been sent, which is the same thing the screen looks like
+    /// before anybody does anything.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task WithdrawingAnInvitation_LeavesItListedAsWithdrawn()
+    {
+        await UnlockedAsync();
+
+        var teams = shell.Teams;
+
+        await CreateTeamAsync(teams, "Platform", "platform");
+
+        teams.InviteEmail = "newcomer@example.com";
+        await teams.AddMemberCommand.ExecuteAsync(null);
+
+        teams.SelectedInvitation = teams.Invitations.ShouldHaveSingleItem();
+
+        await teams.RevokeInvitationCommand.ExecuteAsync(null);
+
+        teams.Invitations.ShouldHaveSingleItem().State.ShouldBe("withdrawn");
+        teams.Status.ShouldContain("Withdrew the invitation");
+    }
+
     private async Task CreateTeamAsync(TeamsViewModel teams, string name, string slug)
     {
         await teams.LoadAsync(Token);

tests/DodoSSH.Infrastructure.Tests/SchemaConstraintTests.cs

@@ -468,6 +468,108 @@ public sealed class SchemaConstraintTests(PostgresFixture fixture)
         UpdatedAtUtc = Now,
     };
 
+    // ---- Team invitations ----
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// One live invitation per address per team. Without the index two admins acting a minute apart
+    /// would each leave a row, and the claim at sign-in would apply both — quietly overwriting whichever
+    /// role was decided second with whichever was written first.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task Invitation_IsUniquePerTeamAndAddress()
+    {
+        await using var context = fixture.CreateContext();
+        var user = await SeedUserAsync(context);
+        var team = SeedTeam(context, user.Id);
+        var email = $"invite{Guid.CreateVersion7():N}@example.com";
+
+        context.TeamInvitations.Add(NewInvitation(team.Id, email, user.Id));
+        await context.SaveChangesAsync();
+
+        context.TeamInvitations.Add(NewInvitation(team.Id, email, user.Id));
+
+        var exception = await Should.ThrowAsync<DbUpdateException>(() => context.SaveChangesAsync());
+
+        exception.InnerException.ShouldBeOfType<PostgresException>()
+            .SqlState.ShouldBe(PostgresErrorCodes.UniqueViolation);
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The citext proof, and it is load-bearing rather than tidy: the address in an invitation is typed
+    /// by a person and the one on the token is chosen by the identity provider, so a column that
+    /// compared them case-sensitively would let <c>Alice@</c> and <c>alice@</c> be two invitations and
+    /// would make the claim at sign-in miss the one that was actually sent.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task Invitation_IsCaseInsensitivelyUniquePerTeam()
+    {
+        await using var context = fixture.CreateContext();
+        var user = await SeedUserAsync(context);
+        var team = SeedTeam(context, user.Id);
+        var email = $"Invite{Guid.CreateVersion7():N}@Example.com";
+
+        context.TeamInvitations.Add(NewInvitation(team.Id, email.ToUpperInvariant(), user.Id));
+        await context.SaveChangesAsync();
+
+        context.TeamInvitations.Add(NewInvitation(team.Id, email.ToLowerInvariant(), user.Id));
+
+        var exception = await Should.ThrowAsync<DbUpdateException>(() => context.SaveChangesAsync());
+
+        exception.InnerException.ShouldBeOfType<PostgresException>()
+            .SqlState.ShouldBe(PostgresErrorCodes.UniqueViolation);
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The other half of the filter. Withdrawing an invitation and issuing a fresh one — at a different
+    /// role, say — has to be possible, so the uniqueness is among live rows rather than all of them, and
+    /// the withdrawn row stays for the history.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task Invitation_MayBeReissuedAfterItIsRevoked()
+    {
+        await using var context = fixture.CreateContext();
+        var user = await SeedUserAsync(context);
+        var team = SeedTeam(context, user.Id);
+        var email = $"invite{Guid.CreateVersion7():N}@example.com";
+
+        var first = NewInvitation(team.Id, email, user.Id);
+        context.TeamInvitations.Add(first);
+        await context.SaveChangesAsync();
+
+        first.RevokedAtUtc = Now;
+        await context.SaveChangesAsync();
+
+        context.TeamInvitations.Add(NewInvitation(team.Id, email, user.Id));
+
+        await Should.NotThrowAsync(() => context.SaveChangesAsync());
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// An accepted invitation frees the slot too, which is what lets somebody removed from a team be
+    /// invited back. The claim marks the old row accepted rather than deleting it, so without this the
+    /// second invitation would collide with a row that has already done its job.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task Invitation_MayBeReissuedAfterItIsAccepted()
+    {
+        await using var context = fixture.CreateContext();
+        var user = await SeedUserAsync(context);
+        var team = SeedTeam(context, user.Id);
+        var email = $"invite{Guid.CreateVersion7():N}@example.com";
+
+        var first = NewInvitation(team.Id, email, user.Id);
+        context.TeamInvitations.Add(first);
+        await context.SaveChangesAsync();
+
+        first.AcceptedAtUtc = Now;
+        first.AcceptedByUserId = user.Id;
+        await context.SaveChangesAsync();
+
+        context.TeamInvitations.Add(NewInvitation(team.Id, email, user.Id));
+
+        await Should.NotThrowAsync(() => context.SaveChangesAsync());
+    }
+
     private static async Task<UserAccount> SeedUserAsync(DodoDbContext context)
     {
         var user = NewUser("https://idp.example", Guid.CreateVersion7().ToString());
@@ -568,4 +670,15 @@ public sealed class SchemaConstraintTests(PostgresFixture fixture)
         ActorUserId = Guid.CreateVersion7(),
         OccurredAtUtc = Now,
     };
+
+    private static TeamInvitation NewInvitation(Guid teamId, string email, Guid invitedBy) => new()
+    {
+        Id = Guid.CreateVersion7(),
+        TeamId = teamId,
+        Email = email,
+        Role = TeamRole.Member,
+        InvitedByUserId = invitedBy,
+        CreatedAtUtc = Now,
+        ExpiresAtUtc = Now.AddDays(14),
+    };
 }