PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-13 04:02:28 +02:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	7d9b93aee2	docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. Issue type Missing documentation and maintenance contract. Where is the issue? The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. What's wrong? There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. Suggested fix Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 14:52:28 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	45862dd210	docs: add a product feature map (#15288 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its user journeys span tasks, agents, projects, connected apps, governance, and CLI operations. > - Existing tests do not provide a shared index of entry points and verification steps. > - Contributors need to see which surfaces a change affects and what evidence exists. > - This pull request adds an optional product feature map with recipes and explicit coverage gaps. > - The map adds no CI checks or required maintenance for future pull requests. > - Contributors can use it to find verification steps and state what they checked. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Issue type Missing documentation. Where is the issue? User-journey verification guidance in AGENTS.md and doc/DEVELOPING.md. What's wrong? There is no shared index of product features, user entry points, available test evidence, and remaining coverage gaps. Shared components can hide differences between their hosts. Suggested fix Add a documentation-only capability index and verification recipes. The format takes inspiration from [Omnigent's feature map](https://github.com/omnigent-ai/omnigent/tree/91acfbbb59f6fc210ff95a9e9428aadd62e06582/feature-map). The recipes describe Paperclip's own behavior and tests. Searched GitHub PRs and issues for `feature map` and `feature-map`. No duplicate change was found. Checked ROADMAP.md. This PR documents existing capabilities. ## What Changed - Added 35 feature recipes, 171 named sub-features, and 91 entry points across product, CLI, operator, and developer surfaces. - Each recipe describes setup, expected results, existing automated evidence, manual verification, and coverage gaps. - Added a dated source snapshot of 185 non-test page TSX modules in 15 areas. The snapshot describes documentation coverage, not runtime health. - Included entry points within existing pages, CLI/API operations, and experimental surfaces. Identified helper-only test evidence where a rendered journey has no automated proof. - Linked the map from AGENTS.md and doc/DEVELOPING.md as an optional reference. - The final diff contains only Markdown and the inventory JSON. It adds no checker, tests, package commands, workflows, dependencies, scheduled work, or mandatory inventory updates. ## Verification - PASS: local documentation links resolve and the inventory JSON parses. Confirmed the final PR diff contains only 39 documentation files. - PASS: `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'` — 381 existing tests after removal of the feature-map tests. - PASS: `git diff --check`. - Earlier local build and typecheck passed. The full local test run was stopped after 26 minutes with failures in unchanged chat-channel and native-runner integration tests. It did not complete. These application checks were not repeated for the documentation-only removal. - [CI on the preceding head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37398407523) passed all applicable checks. Checks on the final documentation-only head are pending. - PASS: Greptile review on final head `45c4b0aeb26540324825da43e81bee2336ad1c1f` is 5/5. There are no unresolved findings. - Live product/provider journeys were not run to author the map. The recipes identify available evidence and manual steps, not new qualification results. ## Risks Low product risk: the PR changes documentation only. Recipes and the source snapshot can become stale. Maintenance is optional and based on review. Linked tests do not prove that every documented journey works. The map states remaining coverage gaps. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository inspection, reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-06 02:08:47 +00:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

DottaandPaperclip

7d9b93aee2

docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product
capabilities.
> - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission
boundaries.
> - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared
capability IDs.
> - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance
ownership of both maps.
> - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product
behavior or permissions.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated
the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288
added the original feature map.

**Issue type**

Missing documentation and maintenance contract.

**Where is the issue?**

The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the
verification skills.

**What's wrong?**

There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points,
permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does
not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it.

**Suggested fix**

Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse
capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from
operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the
maintenance skill.

## What Changed

- Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its
recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion
links.
- Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching
capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths,
policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries
as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`.
- Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence,
agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately.
Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability
operation-reviewed.
- Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and
inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update
creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the
shared contract.
- Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching
areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path
examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency.
- Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation
policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI,
runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes.

## Verification

- Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171
matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve.
- Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests.
Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken
references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API
examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed
verification.
- Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill
and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license
blocks are unchanged.
- Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only
in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte
unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is
retained.
- Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and
contains only this contract change.
- Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for
this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access
was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the
structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are
pending.

## Risks

- The companions are representative source baselines. They are not
complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys.
- The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool
admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance
must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context.
- External links to the old product-map directory may need updates.
Repository references have been updated.
- Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This
contract does not change authority or implement missing paths.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does
not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size,
or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits,
shell commands, and structural regression tests.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-10-12 14:52:28 -05:00

DottaandPaperclip

45862dd210

docs: add a product feature map (#15288 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Its user journeys span tasks, agents, projects, connected apps,
governance, and CLI operations.
> - Existing tests do not provide a shared index of entry points and
verification steps.
> - Contributors need to see which surfaces a change affects and what
evidence exists.
> - This pull request adds an optional product feature map with recipes
and explicit coverage gaps.
> - The map adds no CI checks or required maintenance for future pull
requests.
> - Contributors can use it to find verification steps and state what
they checked.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Issue type**

Missing documentation.

**Where is the issue?**

User-journey verification guidance in AGENTS.md and doc/DEVELOPING.md.

**What's wrong?**

There is no shared index of product features, user entry points,
available test evidence, and remaining coverage gaps. Shared components
can hide differences between their hosts.

**Suggested fix**

Add a documentation-only capability index and verification recipes. The
format takes inspiration from [Omnigent's feature
map](https://github.com/omnigent-ai/omnigent/tree/91acfbbb59f6fc210ff95a9e9428aadd62e06582/feature-map).
The recipes describe Paperclip's own behavior and tests.

Searched GitHub PRs and issues for `feature map` and `feature-map`. No
duplicate change was found. Checked ROADMAP.md. This PR documents
existing capabilities.

## What Changed

- Added 35 feature recipes, 171 named sub-features, and 91 entry points
across product, CLI, operator, and developer surfaces.
- Each recipe describes setup, expected results, existing automated
evidence, manual verification, and coverage gaps.
- Added a dated source snapshot of 185 non-test page TSX modules in 15
areas. The snapshot describes documentation coverage, not runtime
health.
- Included entry points within existing pages, CLI/API operations, and
experimental surfaces. Identified helper-only test evidence where a
rendered journey has no automated proof.
- Linked the map from AGENTS.md and doc/DEVELOPING.md as an optional
reference.
- The final diff contains only Markdown and the inventory JSON. It adds
no checker, tests, package commands, workflows, dependencies, scheduled
work, or mandatory inventory updates.

## Verification

- PASS: local documentation links resolve and the inventory JSON parses.
Confirmed the final PR diff contains only 39 documentation files.
- PASS: `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'` — 381 existing
tests after removal of the feature-map tests.
- PASS: `git diff --check`.
- Earlier local build and typecheck passed. The full local test run was
stopped after 26 minutes with failures in unchanged chat-channel and
native-runner integration tests. It did not complete. These application
checks were not repeated for the documentation-only removal.
- [CI on the preceding
head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37398407523)
passed all applicable checks. Checks on the final documentation-only
head are pending.
- PASS: Greptile review on final head
`45c4b0aeb26540324825da43e81bee2336ad1c1f` is 5/5. There are no
unresolved findings.
- Live product/provider journeys were not run to author the map. The
recipes identify available evidence and manual steps, not new
qualification results.

## Risks

Low product risk: the PR changes documentation only. Recipes and the
source snapshot can become stale. Maintenance is optional and based on
review. Linked tests do not prove that every documented journey works.
The map states remaining coverage gaps.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository inspection, reasoning, tool
use, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window
were not exposed in this session.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-10-06 02:08:47 +00:00