4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	b8ffeb973a	feat(runner): add experimental Grok Bot agent participation (#16219) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents that perform work for a company. > - The shared Runner owns task admission, authority, receipts and finalization. > - An existing Grok Bot needs to receive assignments and return results through that Runner. > - The Bot also needs governed access when it starts work from its own conversation. > - This PR adds agent-purpose MCP access and routine webhook dispatch. > - It reuses the external-agent Rust Runner and keeps Grok capabilities explicit. > - The provider stays experimental until the real-client managed journeys pass. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Agent or provider** Grok Bot, distinct from the Grok Build coding runtime in #13882. **Why this adapter is useful** Users can assign work to an existing Bot, receive progress, questions, documents and files in Paperclip, and let the Bot initiate work under its agent permissions. **How the agent is invoked** A webhook-only routine delivers bounded references. Dedicated named-agent OAuth and MCP provide inbound calls. Setup follows [Grok routines](https://cursor.com/help/grok-bot/routines) and [custom plugins](https://cursor.com/help/grok-bot/connect-plugins). The current desktop app needs its Bot-generated Webhook URL navigation link when routine-row clicks fail. The GitHub search found related Grok Build runtime work, but no existing Grok Bot agent provider. This extends the roadmap’s existing agent, Runner, governance and artifact foundations. ## What Changed - Add default-off Grok Bot participation through the shared real Rust external backend, preserving native provider identity guarantees and distinguishing session closure from remote termination. - Bind agent OAuth to company, agent, client, gateway and authorizer; recheck permissions and task-bound execution authority without manufacturing a native identity. - Persist routine configuration, dispatch intents, authenticated acknowledgement and recovery holds. Store URL/key together in encrypted secret storage, use guarded public egress, and never automatically replay ambiguous HTTP delivery. - Reuse native tools, durable waiting, completion assessment and review. Add task-bound file grants through existing artifact storage; suppress proactive echo dispatch and synchronous result wake loops. - Enforce the current native deliverable work-mode policy at file-ticket issuance and use. Add operator retries for confirmed rejected wakes, with retained receipts, stable retry intent and current-authority checks. Recovery locks bindings before routine rows. Thread Stop resolves the selected run and its agent. - Cancel queued and preparing Stop targets before assignment creation, restore saved setup after a failed request and successful retry, and publish the Grok provider descriptor schema. Advance the versioned Copilot source declaration for the shared schema change; its qualification remains pending. - Filter task summaries with the shared privacy policy, preserve feedback admission when wake delivery is blocked, reconcile settled delivery receipts without restoring work authority, and bind every Stop control to its displayed run. Recovery records distinguish dispatch uncertainty from a revoked session. - Add resumable guided setup, credential replacement, consent, management, observed work status and stop/recovery controls, plus an interactive Storybook journey using the production task thread, question form and report card. Grok’s own apps remain available; Paperclip workspace and third-party tools are deferred. ## Verification - Five focused protocol, authorization, person MCP and Runner files: 192 tests pass. The Grok assigned-work case executes the actual Rust Runner, saves a document, uploads/deduplicates a file and reaches ordinary finalization. - Proactive intake/deduplication and renewed-session recovery pass. These use scripted clients and synthetic storage; they are not real-provider acceptance. - Repository typecheck, production build, token gates, map checks and Storybook build/catalog checks pass. The local full-suite campaign was stopped after macOS shared-memory exhaustion repeatedly prevented embedded PostgreSQL startup. No local aggregate pass is claimed. The first clean-worker CI run identified avatar fixture/configuration, flag defaults, feature-card ordering and OpenAPI route-coverage gaps; all four focused regressions pass after correction. Those regressions pass. The latest clean-worker CI run also found a Copilot source-hash declaration mismatch after the shared descriptor update; the corrected declaration passes all 28 integrity tests. The next review corrections pass 144 rendered UI tests, 21 OpenAPI tests and 82 Runner contract/integrity/history tests. The latest database fixtures were blocked at startup by host shared-memory exhaustion; clean-worker CI must execute their new regressions. Full current-head CI now passes: 54 successful checks and four intentional skips. The database regression uses the PostgreSQL driver result shape; file-policy, rejected-feedback and lock-order cases pass on clean workers. Current-head Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Rendered setup steps and outbound-only verification were walked through in Storybook. Simulation cannot enable Done without an authenticated-reply state. - Actual client OAuth, continued access, reconnect and one routine wake with an exact chat acknowledgement were observed separately. This candidate’s live authenticated challenge, assigned/proactive workflows, Linux managed artifact, restart and cleanup are not yet qualified. The provider stays disabled by default. - The separate Cloud ingress change forwards only exact task-bound upload/download paths and preserves host identity and header stripping. - Current Cloud policy reserves Test for pre-merge app/harness experiments; Staging accepts only master-derived revisions. Real-client qualification needs a supported, authorized deployment target and remains outstanding. ## Risks One append-only migration adds routine/dispatch state and extends shared bindings and file tickets. The unshipped migrations were regenerated after upstream consumed their original numbers. Rolling back code retains the durable rows; revoke grants and inspect unknown remote activity before resuming dispatch. Grok cannot confirm remote termination, stream its complete transcript or report spending. Plugins are account-wide and do not isolate credentials between Bots. Real-client managed acceptance remains required before enabling the experimental provider. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code execution and browser/native UI tools. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size are not exposed by this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 20:57:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	433d94ee0b	refactor(maps): generate indexes from local story and feature metadata (#16214) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Feature recipes and Storybook help contributors find behavior, examples, and verification steps. > - Independent feature changes currently update shared catalogs, indexes, and review hashes. > - Those shared files cause merge conflicts and repeated bookkeeping during parallel work. > - This pull request stores metadata in each feature recipe and story, then generates the combined views. > - Contributors can merge independent work without editing a common index. Git and PR evidence retain change and review history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintaining the product, agent-access, and Storybook maps while multiple agents change different features. **Current behavior** A story or recipe change can update `catalog.json`, `INDEX.md`, review hashes, verification tables, and tracked generated navigation. Two unrelated changes then conflict in the same files. **Proposed behavior** Each story declares capability links and classification in `parameters.paperclip`. Each feature recipe declares its navigation and optional verification guidance. Startup, build, and UI typechecking discover these sources and generate ignored indexes and Storybook pages. **Reason and benefit** A routine change edits its own source files. Aggregate metadata is rebuilt from the merged checkout. There is no sidecar registry, shared review journal, or hash acknowledgment to maintain. **Breaking changes** The tracked Storybook catalog and index paths are retired. Consumers use `ui/storybook/generated/` or `maps/generated/` after generation. Contributor instructions and the existing feature-gap browser suite use the new paths. Story and overview IDs remain stable. ## What Changed - Move the existing annotations into 262 story files. Preserve classifications, capability associations, exports, and explicit IDs. - Discover all 35 feature recipes. Store section/order beside each recipe and move durable verification routes out of the shared table. - Remove tracked catalogs, inventories, overview pages, and inline preview ordering. Keep authored preview behavior in `preview-base.tsx`. - Generate the Storybook guide, feature/access Markdown indexes, gap report, page-reference inventory, and preview wrapper automatically. - Update the map contracts and maintenance skills to use Git history and revision-specific PR/CI evidence. - Add schema, identity, regeneration, and actual Git merge tests. Run these through the existing UI Vitest suite. Add focused browser navigation checks. This is one coordinated migration. Most of the 367 changed files contain only moved metadata or deleted generated content. Review the generator scripts, map contracts, Storybook configuration, and tests first. No product API or authorization behavior changes. ## Verification Passed: - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas and 175 capabilities. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check`: 262 suites and 2,485 authored stories after incorporating current master. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 28 tests, including independent branches merged in both orders with identical generated output and no tracked changes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run storybook/map-tooling.test.ts`: the CI entrypoint runs those map tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` before the final master rebase. - `pnpm build-storybook`: all 2,517 original story/docs URLs retained. Current master contributes exactly four additional recovery stories. - Focused Playwright navigation checks: search and open a feature without examples; expand verification guidance and check source links; retain capability order and follow a related Foundations suite. The final clean Storybook build passed after deleting every ignored map output. Post-rebase UI typechecking and both browser tests passed. The working tree stays clean after generation. The concurrent-cleanup regression fails with `ENOENT` without the fix and passes with it. All GitHub CI gates passed on `00fc7ec18e`, which also received Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The final merge commit `1c3c5143a6` incorporates master and resolves only the two modify/delete conflicts by retaining removal of the aggregate index and catalog. Master’s new workspace feature and access guidance is preserved. Map validation, catalog generation, overview generation, all 28 map tests, and diff checks pass after conflict resolution. The maintainer explicitly requested merging without another Greptile review. CI has not been rerun to completion on this merge commit. The local repository-wide `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after the earlier CI matrix passed; it is not reported as a local pass. No screenshot baselines or production acceptance are claimed. To repeat the browser check against an owned Storybook server: ```sh PAPERCLIP_GAP_STORYBOOK_URL=http://127.0.0.1:6136 pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/storybook-visual/feature-gap-stories.config.ts map-navigation.spec.ts ``` ## Risks - Existing branches need a one-time rebase to move their catalog changes into local annotations. The PR incorporates the recovery changes from current master. - Changing the same story or capability can still produce a meaningful conflict. This removes the shared aggregate bottleneck. - The generator uses Storybook's existing CSF parser. Literal-only annotations and parser regression tests protect the current contract. - Generated Markdown is available after running the generator; the published Storybook provides a browsable guide. - Shared source changes still require review. Removing hashes removes mechanical acknowledgments; it does not establish runtime parity. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser-test tools. The exact deployment 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 - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the previously reviewed head `00fc7ec18e`; final conflict-resolution checks are documented above - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on `00fc7ec18e`; another review was waived by the maintainer - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 15:27:23 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5e8e992df2	fix(storybook): reconcile capability associations and map omissions (#16154) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - The feature map describes user capabilities and verification recipes. > - Storybook holds isolated examples of those capabilities. > - Missing catalog links can hide existing examples. > - Some stories also expose shipped capabilities absent from the map. > - This pull request adds verified source associations and three paired map entries. > - Readers can find existing examples without changing their homes or URLs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16052, #16049 and #16046. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Storybook capability lookup and the feature/agent access maps. **Current behavior** Seventy capabilities have no example link. Some matching stories already exist. Primary-agent preferences and company decision/fast-response services appear only under broad neighboring capabilities. **Proposed behavior** Add source-supported links across 34 suites. Keep shared foundations in place while cross-listing them. Add primary-agent, decision-model and fast-response capabilities to both upstream maps. Retain explicit simulation and partial-example limits. **Reason and benefit** The catalog distinguishes missing associations from missing examples. The upstream map describes three existing product capabilities more precisely. **Breaking changes** None to product behavior, story exports, folders, sidebar titles or URLs. A shared foundation can declare a reasoned `home: "foundations"` override while referencing related capabilities. ## What Changed - Add 55 references across 34 suites. Replace primary-agent suites' reporting-line association with their own capability. - Add three source-reviewed capabilities and their API/actor boundaries to paired maps. - Preserve the shared Foundations home when cross-listing developer design examples. Add a validation regression test. - Record which exports demonstrate each association and what remains simulated or unverified. - Regenerate the catalog and capability data. Preserve all original 223 authored suites and 2,210 story IDs. Retain the two skill-removal stories added by current master, for 2,212 authored stories in total. - Reduce empty example lookups from 70 of 171 capabilities to 59 of 174. Links do not establish complete capability coverage. ## Verification - Passed: 27 catalog/generator/map tests, catalog validation, map structural checks, token gates and skill validation. - Passed: source inventory comparison preserves all authored files, titles, meta IDs and story IDs. - Passed: repository typecheck/build and Storybook build. Final built index has 2,248 entries and preserves all previous entries, including the two skills stories added by current master. - The broad local repository test run was interrupted before completion to resolve a new master conflict. A complete local suite pass is not claimed; fresh CI passed on the reconciled branch. - Browser: Design links to preserved Foundations stories; company-service sections link settings/history/journey suites; decision SetupToHistory passed 12 interaction steps; primary-agent ReplacePrimary passed four steps. No console errors in selected checks. - Greptile: 5/5 on final commit `805a8af62abe589907e7cc6ca1b415ce1e0cc3c0`, with no findings or unresolved threads. - Final-revision CI passed all 57 checks/statuses, including all eight browser shards, server and Runner tests, typecheck and build. The unchanged Cloud-auth mocked-response race seen on a superseded revision did not recur on the final commit. No test expectations were changed. - New agent-access evidence is source-only. Live provider and agent-credential verification is not established. ## Risks - Suite-level associations can represent only selected states. Notes retain those limits and existing review classifications. - In-memory connection drafts do not prove reload persistence. Resume-failure UI does not prove successful continuation. No-op budget controls do not prove relief or resumption. - Three map capabilities document existing behavior. No permission, API, provider or production component changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, code execution and source inspection. The exact runtime model ID and context window are 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 - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 08:11:15 -05:00
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