PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-23 09:07:46 +02:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	505e1a5582	feat(cases): add persistent workflows with same-task agent handoffs (#16959 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - An agent workflow needs persistent facts and a safe way to transfer work. > - Creating a task for each phase splits the objective, discussion, workspace, and review policy. > - A case can retain the facts while one primary task moves between agents. > - Transfers must survive process failure and preserve private access, budgets, and completion gates. > - This pull request adds durable case handoffs, native case tools, and read-only case pages. > - Prompts describe the workflow. Existing task controls decide when work can run and finish. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Problem or motivation Prompt-driven agent teams need a persistent record that can move through triage, implementation, verification, and correction. Ordinary reassignment does not provide a durable instruction, safe release barrier, or recoverable delivery receipt for an agent handing off its own running task. Proposed solution Extend standalone cases with one primary task, a descriptive phase, retained access sources, and a handoff ledger. Apply assignments after source execution and workspace settlement. Deliver each transfer through the existing durable wake queue. Provide `create_case`, `read_case`, `update_case`, and `handoff_case` in the native runner. Creation requires kickoff and explicit workflow text. An explicit handoff to `done` closes the case when normal task completion is accepted. Alternatives considered Do not add a workflow engine, filesystem queue, configured state graph, or one task per phase. The workflow document combines transition prose with an optional Mermaid `stateDiagram-v2` map. The server does not execute the diagram. The Pipelines experiment removed on master stays removed. Roadmap alignment This extends Agent Reviews and Approvals, Enforced Outcomes, Bounded Run Recovery, and Activity Log attribution. Existing approval, review, budget, privacy, workspace, and responsible-user rules remain authoritative. Related work: [ordinary handoff wake recovery](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15019). This feature adds a separate persisted case-handoff receipt and release barrier. ## What Changed - Add case routing fields, retained access sources, durable handoff history, delivery leases, and replay-safe migrations. - Keep the same primary task across agent phases. Preserve each returning agent's own session and the task's workspace. - Fence outgoing mutations, wait for provider and workspace release, and recover delivery without duplicate task comments or runs. Recheck current assignment permissions as the original caller before applying a delayed transfer. Scope a run Stop to that run’s own handoff intents, so repeated old Stop requests preserve newer work. Cancelling terminal intent without a source run also requires fenced current task ownership, including native retries and preparation with an old checkout. For Cloud callers, revalidate current stack membership with an uncached Cloud RPC and derive owner elevation from the current managed setting. - Keep case reads, documents, assets, Audit, and live events inside retained task/project permissions. - Add native case creation/read/update/handoff tools. Store required workflow text and initial documents on the first task. Page oversized case facts and referenced document bodies through the dedicated tool with bounded UTF-8 JSON, current routing versions, snapshot conflicts, and current source authorization on every page. - Add read-only case lists and detail pages, task-style list controls, compact dotted field tables, linked handoff tasks, and case filters in Audit. - Add native/legacy integration tests, migration/restart tests, browser coverage, and bounded live receipt fixtures. Extend the trusted sandbox condition to cover the new subscription fixture profile. - Hide obsolete paused-agent warnings on completed or cancelled task threads. - Synchronize the company-switch settings test with React effects after a CI failure. Preserve its security assertions and production remount behavior. ## Verification The branch directly includes master `9ef434fe79`. The required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` gates pass on head `765fccd67c`. [Current-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39464348614) passes typecheck, build, tests, and all eight browser shards. Security checks pass. [Greptile gives this exact head 5/5](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16959#issuecomment-6291156549), with no unresolved review threads. The optional Paperclip Review check remains queued because its assigned agent is paused. It is not a required branch check. No check result was overridden. Local workspace typecheck and build pass after the master merge, along with database migration checks, token gates, map checks, Storybook catalog checks, and the Copilot profile identity check. Standard builds refresh Runner vendor output. Focused checks pass 2,008 API/paging/context tests and 7 strict case protocol tests. The final commit changes one test fixture only; its ten tests, UI typecheck, and token gates pass. No production source changed in that commit. On current head `765fccd67c`, all 194 critical workflow tests executed and passed with no skipped tests in those files: - 38 Stop/ownership tests, including board completion intent, native retries, stale Stop, and preparation with an old checkout. - 2 actual legacy process/HTTP handoff tests, including scratch failure, a closed-stdio child that continues writing, and recovery through a fresh worker after the process group stops. - 5 migration tests, including SQL column metadata, preserved null authority context, and all six prior-numbering receipts. - 3 process-settlement and 5 scratch tests. - 88 handoff-service, 18 heartbeat handoff, and 21 native case-tool integration tests. - 7 bounded case/document-read projection tests and 7 strict protocol-contract tests. The current CI checkout was `fed65d49`, merging `765fccd67c` into master `9ef434fe79`. Its new document regressions reconstruct exact Unicode/escaped bodies and revisions through real native authority and authenticated HTTP with generic API tools disabled. They cover case-owned, primary-task, and linked-task documents; routing on every page; stale document snapshots; access loss and unlinking; unrelated/foreign/private sources; system documents; and quarantined content. Active-task document tools retain their existing behavior. These are current-head test results from the first CI attempt; the browser-only retry did not rerun these suites. The full `64fdd3403f` CI failed one separate settings test: after a company switch, it observed an unsettled API-key draft. The production component and test were unchanged from prior green source. Production switches remount both keyed settings layers; the test directly reused an unkeyed view and used a timer tick instead of waiting for React effects. The final commit replaces that fixture synchronization with React `act`. The exact secret-clearing assertions and all timeouts remain unchanged. The original assertion failure remains recorded; no unchanged retry was used. The narrow unchanged baseline and fixed fixture each pass 10 tests. The upstream result-paging merge preserves case capture namespaces and current asset privacy. Its API integration suite executed 39 of 41 tests successfully, with two skipped; the optional assigned-result PRP integration test was skipped. Neither skipped suite is counted in the 194 critical tests or as live provider proof. All 361 upstream migration entries and SQL bodies remain unchanged. Six case migrations follow master as 0363–0368 with identical SQL hashes. Official Drizzle generators produced the combined metadata and five retained snapshots. Generation reports no schema changes, and the snapshot drift test passes. The earlier `ce361ae5d0` CI passed on attempt 1, including its then-current 179 critical tests. Fresh review later identified unusable document references with generic API tools disabled; the bounded document reads and ten additional authenticated HTTP tests address that finding. The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was cancelled after this Mac exhausted PostgreSQL semaphore capacity; it is not counted as a pass. Later database attempts also stopped before assertions or skipped, including one sandbox socket denial. Two original stale-Stop regressions did reproduce the bug against the old source. A REST serialization assertion passed after two preserved database-startup failures. No test timeout was increased. All 194 assertions listed above executed and passed in current-head CI. The complete 385-file, 3,963-test UI shard also passed after the fixture repair. A configured-provider receipt workflow passed 13 backend checks across triage → implementation → verification → correction → done, using one task and four work runs. The saved receipt is revision 2 with total 6 USD; case and task both closed. The original canonical attempt remains failed because its browser assertion confused the terminal destination with completed-task tooltips. The corrected full browser verifier passed on the same retained database and original runs, with no additional provider calls. The last clean-build browser readback is on `6a86c54a53`; later changes affect recovery, authorization, bounded reads, and settlement. Accounted work cost is a $1.010574 rate-card estimate; provider billing and setup-probe usage are unavailable. Copilot profile 49 passed the unchanged seven-fixture private protocol pack (46/46 checks, no retries) and the product file-edit canary after master's completion-replay change. All 60 bound implementation hashes remain unchanged on the current source. Historical profile-47/48 identities and results remain intact. See the [profile-49 compatibility record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/persistent-case-handoffs/doc/plans/2026-10-20-copilot-completion-recovery-compatibility-v49.json). This is bounded compatibility evidence, not a fresh full matrix, installed-package product test, or Daytona rollout. Preserved CI failures and retries: - On `20662930ac`, Slack managed setup failed a five-second success assertion after reload. Its test/application path was unchanged from a prior green head. One unchanged-source retry passed all 25 tests in that shard; no source or timeout changed. - On `9402b4f17a`, two CI workers received shutdown signals at 15:24:19 UTC. Neither log had an assertion failure before interruption. One unchanged-source retry of each passed all Runner static checks and all 32 tests in browser shard 6; both aggregates passed. The next head, `7b4374edaf`, passed all CI without retries. - On `295f289b5a`, serialized shard 9 timed out during its first device-login test, then the next test found an active login lease. Direct login/test paths were unchanged from a prior green head. Cold import plus a timed-out async body using the next test's mutable actor/store is the supported fixture-race explanation; no request trace proves that sequence. The original failure remains recorded. One unchanged-source retry passed all 294 tests in 19 files, including all 41 device-login tests. No login source or timeout changed. The subsequent `ce361ae5d0` CI passed without retries. - On `64fdd3403f`, one company-switch settings assertion observed an unsettled draft. The final test-only commit uses React `act` without changing assertions, timeouts, or production code. On `765fccd67c`, all ten settings tests and the complete 385-file, 3,963-test UI shard passed. - On `765fccd67c`, browser shard 3 completed the split-handoff assertions, then cleanup received HTTP 500 from run cancellation after a one-second PostgreSQL row-lock timeout. The extra chat run was reporting completed work while teardown began. Cleanup stopped before restoring a global experiment flag, causing a later assertion to fail. Relevant production and test paths are unchanged from an earlier green commit. Stop's lock order is consistent, and no nested self-lock was found; the exact PostgreSQL blocker was not recorded. One unchanged-shard retry passed. The original failure, trace, and downstream flag failure remain recorded. No Stop implementation, cleanup assertion, or timeout changed. The retry supports intermittent cleanup contention; it does not identify the original blocking transaction. ## Risks - Local process transfers require host-owned PID/group absence. Missing or uncertain termination evidence keeps delivery pending, independently of scratch setup. - Handoff admission and task cancellation share execution ownership. New regression tests cover temporary holds, late source writes, and uncertain provider termination. - Retained private sources use an intersection of existing permissions. This intentionally fails closed when a source is missing or an existing task cannot preserve that boundary. - Migrations add tables and indexes. They preserve master history and can replay over prior feature installs. Migration 0368 adds nullable internal authorization provenance with no default or authority backfill. Historical transfers still awaiting release without this context fail closed; an operator must cancel them and request a new handoff. - Delayed Cloud handoffs depend on the current Cloud membership RPC. An unavailable, ambiguous, expired, or mismatched response holds the handoff for retry; it does not reuse cached authority or grant access. - Bounded reads reload and reauthorize the selected projection per page. Underlying work grows with the data size and number of pages. Changed data or routing requires restarting from offset zero without the old snapshot. - Phase names and workflow diagrams remain advisory. They do not satisfy review or approval gates. - This is a large, cross-cutting PR. The maintainer requested one PR for the whole feature; the commits separate data, runtime, UI, and qualification work. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use, code execution, and delegated code review. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size were not exposed in the session. Live fixture agents used the explicitly configured provider model recorded in their test evidence. ## 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>	2026-10-20 12:46:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9ef434fe79	docs: expose feature map IDs and add a recipe index (#16987 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its feature map describes user journeys and their verification paths. > - The map already defines feature IDs and full capability IDs. > - The README and child pages did not show those IDs consistently. > - Readers need those IDs to connect issues, tests, stories, and evidence. > - This pull request adds a recipe index and displays the existing IDs. > - The benefit is clear references across the product and agent access maps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Issue type Missing documentation. Where is the issue? `maps/feature-map/README.md`, the child recipes, and their agent access companions. What's wrong? The README sends readers to Storybook to browse features. Child pages show local keys, such as `installation`, without the full `plugins/installation` ID. Readers must inspect the generator to find the full reference. Suggested fix List recipe links and existing IDs in the README. Show each feature ID and full capability ID in its child pages. Explain capability IDs and entry-point references. Keep the current keys and anchors. Related work: Refs #15288. Refs #16052. Refs #15983. No duplicate open PR or issue was found by title search. ## What Changed - Add an index grouped by feature area. It lists every recipe, feature ID, and full capability ID. - Explain how IDs are formed and used in issues, tests, Storybook, and evidence. - Add feature IDs to all product recipes and agent access companions. - Show full capability IDs beside recipe keys and below access and Storybook guidance headings. - Preserve existing keys, heading anchors, and generated ID values. Keep the latest upstream company capability in the index. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes for 34 feature families and 175 capability IDs. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes all 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` passes on this checkout and generates the feature indexes and overview inputs. - `git diff --check` passes. - A source comparison confirms that the README matches the recipe index. After removal of the added ID labels, all 68 child pages match the upstream prose and headings. - Full workspace checks were attempted: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`. They could not start because the local pnpm wrapper could not fetch and verify the pinned pnpm 9.15.4 release. This checkout also has no workspace dependencies installed. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` could not run because `storybook/internal/csf-tools` is not installed. The direct map and index checks above pass without that dependency. - Remote typecheck, release-registry, and full build checks passed. The first attempts of [server shard 3/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758430448) and [server shard 12/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758429932) stopped after their runners received a shutdown signal. The test steps were canceled. GitHub rejects the rerun request with HTTP 403: "The workflow run containing this job is already running". Five other CI jobs remain active. The next action is to rerun the two interrupted shards after workflow 39460473910 ends. No application changes were made to address these runner interruptions. - To inspect the result, open the feature-map README, follow a recipe link, and compare its full capability IDs with its access companion. ## Risks - Low risk. The change updates map documentation only. It changes no application code or ID schema. - The readable README index and child labels repeat source IDs. Keep them aligned when a capability changes. - Generated capability descriptions now include the visible ID prefix. Generated IDs, labels, navigation order, and verification fields remain the same. - Full local workspace checks and catalog generation remain unverified for the environment reasons above. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-6.1-sol`, with a 475,000-token context window and `xhigh` reasoning effort. The model used local file tools, shell commands, and GitHub CLI access. ## 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>	2026-10-20 12:00:36 -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

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

DottaandPaperclip

505e1a5582

feat(cases): add persistent workflows with same-task agent handoffs (#16959 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work.
> - An agent workflow needs persistent facts and a safe way to transfer
work.
> - Creating a task for each phase splits the objective, discussion,
workspace, and review policy.
> - A case can retain the facts while one primary task moves between
agents.
> - Transfers must survive process failure and preserve private access,
budgets, and completion gates.
> - This pull request adds durable case handoffs, native case tools, and
read-only case pages.
> - Prompts describe the workflow. Existing task controls decide when
work can run and finish.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Problem or motivation**

Prompt-driven agent teams need a persistent record that can move through
triage, implementation, verification, and correction. Ordinary
reassignment does not provide a durable instruction, safe release
barrier, or recoverable delivery receipt for an agent handing off its
own running task.

**Proposed solution**

Extend standalone cases with one primary task, a descriptive phase,
retained access sources, and a handoff ledger. Apply assignments after
source execution and workspace settlement. Deliver each transfer through
the existing durable wake queue. Provide `create_case`, `read_case`,
`update_case`, and `handoff_case` in the native runner. Creation
requires kickoff and explicit workflow text. An explicit handoff to
`done` closes the case when normal task completion is accepted.

**Alternatives considered**

Do not add a workflow engine, filesystem queue, configured state graph,
or one task per phase. The workflow document combines transition prose
with an optional Mermaid `stateDiagram-v2` map. The server does not
execute the diagram. The Pipelines experiment removed on master stays
removed.

**Roadmap alignment**

This extends Agent Reviews and Approvals, Enforced Outcomes, Bounded Run
Recovery, and Activity Log attribution. Existing approval, review,
budget, privacy, workspace, and responsible-user rules remain
authoritative.

Related work: [ordinary handoff wake
recovery](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15019). This
feature adds a separate persisted case-handoff receipt and release
barrier.

## What Changed

- Add case routing fields, retained access sources, durable handoff
history, delivery leases, and replay-safe migrations.
- Keep the same primary task across agent phases. Preserve each
returning agent's own session and the task's workspace.
- Fence outgoing mutations, wait for provider and workspace release, and
recover delivery without duplicate task comments or runs. Recheck
current assignment permissions as the original caller before applying a
delayed transfer. Scope a run Stop to that run’s own handoff intents, so
repeated old Stop requests preserve newer work. Cancelling terminal
intent without a source run also requires fenced current task ownership,
including native retries and preparation with an old checkout. For Cloud
callers, revalidate current stack membership with an uncached Cloud RPC
and derive owner elevation from the current managed setting.
- Keep case reads, documents, assets, Audit, and live events inside
retained task/project permissions.
- Add native case creation/read/update/handoff tools. Store required
workflow text and initial documents on the first task. Page oversized
case facts and referenced document bodies through the dedicated tool
with bounded UTF-8 JSON, current routing versions, snapshot conflicts,
and current source authorization on every page.
- Add read-only case lists and detail pages, task-style list controls,
compact dotted field tables, linked handoff tasks, and case filters in
Audit.
- Add native/legacy integration tests, migration/restart tests, browser
coverage, and bounded live receipt fixtures. Extend the trusted sandbox
condition to cover the new subscription fixture profile.
- Hide obsolete paused-agent warnings on completed or cancelled task
threads.
- Synchronize the company-switch settings test with React effects after
a CI failure. Preserve its security assertions and production remount
behavior.

## Verification

The branch directly includes master `9ef434fe79`. The required `ci /
verify` and `ci / e2e` gates pass on head `765fccd67c`. [Current-head
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39464348614)
passes typecheck, build, tests, and all eight browser shards. Security
checks pass. [Greptile gives this exact head
5/5](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16959#issuecomment-6291156549),
with no unresolved review threads. The optional Paperclip Review check
remains queued because its assigned agent is paused. It is not a
required branch check. No check result was overridden.

Local workspace typecheck and build pass after the master merge, along
with database migration checks, token gates, map checks, Storybook
catalog checks, and the Copilot profile identity check. Standard builds
refresh Runner vendor output. Focused checks pass 2,008
API/paging/context tests and 7 strict case protocol tests. The final
commit changes one test fixture only; its ten tests, UI typecheck, and
token gates pass. No production source changed in that commit.

On current head `765fccd67c`, all **194 critical workflow tests**
executed and passed with no skipped tests in those files:

- 38 Stop/ownership tests, including board completion intent, native
retries, stale Stop, and preparation with an old checkout.
- 2 actual legacy process/HTTP handoff tests, including scratch failure,
a closed-stdio child that continues writing, and recovery through a
fresh worker after the process group stops.
- 5 migration tests, including SQL column metadata, preserved null
authority context, and all six prior-numbering receipts.
- 3 process-settlement and 5 scratch tests.
- 88 handoff-service, 18 heartbeat handoff, and 21 native case-tool
integration tests.
- 7 bounded case/document-read projection tests and 7 strict
protocol-contract tests.

The current CI checkout was `fed65d49`, merging `765fccd67c` into master
`9ef434fe79`. Its new document regressions reconstruct exact
Unicode/escaped bodies and revisions through real native authority and
authenticated HTTP with generic API tools disabled. They cover
case-owned, primary-task, and linked-task documents; routing on every
page; stale document snapshots; access loss and unlinking;
unrelated/foreign/private sources; system documents; and quarantined
content. Active-task document tools retain their existing behavior.
These are current-head test results from the first CI attempt; the
browser-only retry did not rerun these suites.

The full `64fdd3403f` CI failed one separate settings test: after a
company switch, it observed an unsettled API-key draft. The production
component and test were unchanged from prior green source. Production
switches remount both keyed settings layers; the test directly reused an
unkeyed view and used a timer tick instead of waiting for React effects.
The final commit replaces that fixture synchronization with React `act`.
The exact secret-clearing assertions and all timeouts remain unchanged.
The original assertion failure remains recorded; no unchanged retry was
used. The narrow unchanged baseline and fixed fixture each pass 10
tests.

The upstream result-paging merge preserves case capture namespaces and
current asset privacy. Its API integration suite executed 39 of 41 tests
successfully, with two skipped; the optional assigned-result PRP
integration test was skipped. Neither skipped suite is counted in the
194 critical tests or as live provider proof.

All 361 upstream migration entries and SQL bodies remain unchanged. Six
case migrations follow master as 0363–0368 with identical SQL hashes.
Official Drizzle generators produced the combined metadata and five
retained snapshots. Generation reports no schema changes, and the
snapshot drift test passes. The earlier `ce361ae5d0` CI passed on
attempt 1, including its then-current 179 critical tests. Fresh review
later identified unusable document references with generic API tools
disabled; the bounded document reads and ten additional authenticated
HTTP tests address that finding.

The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was cancelled after this Mac
exhausted PostgreSQL semaphore capacity; it is **not** counted as a
pass. Later database attempts also stopped before assertions or skipped,
including one sandbox socket denial. Two original stale-Stop regressions
did reproduce the bug against the old source. A REST serialization
assertion passed after two preserved database-startup failures. No test
timeout was increased. All 194 assertions listed above executed and
passed in current-head CI. The complete 385-file, 3,963-test UI shard
also passed after the fixture repair.

A configured-provider receipt workflow passed 13 backend checks across
triage → implementation → verification → correction → done, using one
task and four work runs. The saved receipt is revision 2 with total 6
USD; case and task both closed. The original canonical attempt remains
failed because its browser assertion confused the terminal destination
with completed-task tooltips. The corrected full browser verifier passed
on the same retained database and original runs, with no additional
provider calls. The last clean-build browser readback is on
`6a86c54a53`; later changes affect recovery, authorization, bounded
reads, and settlement. Accounted work cost is a $1.010574 rate-card
estimate; provider billing and setup-probe usage are unavailable.

Copilot profile 49 passed the unchanged seven-fixture private protocol
pack (46/46 checks, no retries) and the product file-edit canary after
master's completion-replay change. All 60 bound implementation hashes
remain unchanged on the current source. Historical profile-47/48
identities and results remain intact. See the [profile-49 compatibility
record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/persistent-case-handoffs/doc/plans/2026-10-20-copilot-completion-recovery-compatibility-v49.json).
This is bounded compatibility evidence, not a fresh full matrix,
installed-package product test, or Daytona rollout.

Preserved CI failures and retries:

- On `20662930ac`, Slack managed setup failed a five-second success
assertion after reload. Its test/application path was unchanged from a
prior green head. One unchanged-source retry passed all 25 tests in that
shard; no source or timeout changed.
- On `9402b4f17a`, two CI workers received shutdown signals at 15:24:19
UTC. Neither log had an assertion failure before interruption. One
unchanged-source retry of each passed all Runner static checks and all
32 tests in browser shard 6; both aggregates passed. The next head,
`7b4374edaf`, passed all CI without retries.
- On `295f289b5a`, serialized shard 9 timed out during its first
device-login test, then the next test found an active login lease.
Direct login/test paths were unchanged from a prior green head. Cold
import plus a timed-out async body using the next test's mutable
actor/store is the supported fixture-race explanation; no request trace
proves that sequence. The original failure remains recorded. One
unchanged-source retry passed all 294 tests in 19 files, including all
41 device-login tests. No login source or timeout changed. The
subsequent `ce361ae5d0` CI passed without retries.
- On `64fdd3403f`, one company-switch settings assertion observed an
unsettled draft. The final test-only commit uses React `act` without
changing assertions, timeouts, or production code. On `765fccd67c`, all
ten settings tests and the complete 385-file, 3,963-test UI shard
passed.
- On `765fccd67c`, browser shard 3 completed the split-handoff
assertions, then cleanup received HTTP 500 from run cancellation after a
one-second PostgreSQL row-lock timeout. The extra chat run was reporting
completed work while teardown began. Cleanup stopped before restoring a
global experiment flag, causing a later assertion to fail. Relevant
production and test paths are unchanged from an earlier green commit.
Stop's lock order is consistent, and no nested self-lock was found; the
exact PostgreSQL blocker was not recorded. One unchanged-shard retry
passed. The original failure, trace, and downstream flag failure remain
recorded. No Stop implementation, cleanup assertion, or timeout changed.
The retry supports intermittent cleanup contention; it does not identify
the original blocking transaction.

## Risks

- Local process transfers require host-owned PID/group absence. Missing
or uncertain termination evidence keeps delivery pending, independently
of scratch setup.
- Handoff admission and task cancellation share execution ownership. New
regression tests cover temporary holds, late source writes, and
uncertain provider termination.
- Retained private sources use an intersection of existing permissions.
This intentionally fails closed when a source is missing or an existing
task cannot preserve that boundary.
- Migrations add tables and indexes. They preserve master history and
can replay over prior feature installs. Migration 0368 adds nullable
internal authorization provenance with no default or authority backfill.
Historical transfers still awaiting release without this context fail
closed; an operator must cancel them and request a new handoff.
- Delayed Cloud handoffs depend on the current Cloud membership RPC. An
unavailable, ambiguous, expired, or mismatched response holds the
handoff for retry; it does not reuse cached authority or grant access.
- Bounded reads reload and reauthorize the selected projection per page.
Underlying work grows with the data size and number of pages. Changed
data or routing requires restarting from offset zero without the old
snapshot.
- Phase names and workflow diagrams remain advisory. They do not satisfy
review or approval gates.
- This is a large, cross-cutting PR. The maintainer requested one PR for
the whole feature; the commits separate data, runtime, UI, and
qualification work.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use, code execution, and delegated
code review. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size were
not exposed in the session. Live fixture agents used the explicitly
configured provider model recorded in their test evidence.

## 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>

2026-10-20 12:46:14 -05:00

DottaandPaperclip

9ef434fe79

docs: expose feature map IDs and add a recipe index (#16987 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Its feature map describes user journeys and their verification
paths.
> - The map already defines feature IDs and full capability IDs.
> - The README and child pages did not show those IDs consistently.
> - Readers need those IDs to connect issues, tests, stories, and
evidence.
> - This pull request adds a recipe index and displays the existing IDs.
> - The benefit is clear references across the product and agent access
maps.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Issue type**

Missing documentation.

**Where is the issue?**

`maps/feature-map/README.md`, the child recipes, and their agent access
companions.

**What's wrong?**

The README sends readers to Storybook to browse features. Child pages
show local keys, such as `installation`, without the full
`plugins/installation` ID. Readers must inspect the generator to find
the full reference.

**Suggested fix**

List recipe links and existing IDs in the README. Show each feature ID
and full capability ID in its child pages. Explain capability IDs and
entry-point references. Keep the current keys and anchors.

Related work: Refs #15288. Refs #16052. Refs #15983. No duplicate open
PR or issue was found by title search.

## What Changed

- Add an index grouped by feature area. It lists every recipe, feature
ID, and full capability ID.
- Explain how IDs are formed and used in issues, tests, Storybook, and
evidence.
- Add feature IDs to all product recipes and agent access companions.
- Show full capability IDs beside recipe keys and below access and
Storybook guidance headings.
- Preserve existing keys, heading anchors, and generated ID values. Keep
the latest upstream company capability in the index.

## Verification

- `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes for 34 feature families and 175
capability IDs.
- `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs
scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes all 17 tests.
- `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` passes on this checkout and
generates the feature indexes and overview inputs.
- `git diff --check` passes.
- A source comparison confirms that the README matches the recipe index.
After removal of the added ID labels, all 68 child pages match the
upstream prose and headings.
- Full workspace checks were attempted: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm
test:run`, and `pnpm build`. They could not start because the local pnpm
wrapper could not fetch and verify the pinned pnpm 9.15.4 release. This
checkout also has no workspace dependencies installed.
- `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` could not run because
`storybook/internal/csf-tools` is not installed. The direct map and
index checks above pass without that dependency.
- Remote typecheck, release-registry, and full build checks passed. The
first attempts of [server shard
3/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758430448)
and [server shard
12/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758429932)
stopped after their runners received a shutdown signal. The test steps
were canceled. GitHub rejects the rerun request with HTTP 403: "The
workflow run containing this job is already running". Five other CI jobs
remain active. The next action is to rerun the two interrupted shards
after workflow 39460473910 ends. No application changes were made to
address these runner interruptions.
- To inspect the result, open the feature-map README, follow a recipe
link, and compare its full capability IDs with its access companion.

## Risks

- Low risk. The change updates map documentation only. It changes no
application code or ID schema.
- The readable README index and child labels repeat source IDs. Keep
them aligned when a capability changes.
- Generated capability descriptions now include the visible ID prefix.
Generated IDs, labels, navigation order, and verification fields remain
the same.
- Full local workspace checks and catalog generation remain unverified
for the environment reasons above.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-6.1-sol`, with a 475,000-token context window
and `xhigh` reasoning effort. The model used local file tools, shell
commands, and GitHub CLI access.

## 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>

2026-10-20 12:00:36 -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