2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
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