PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-17 20:09:05 +02:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
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	aded4197e5	fix: make multiplayer task toasts personal (#16153 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A company can have several human users and shared agents. > - Live task events currently produce toasts for any user who can read the task. > - This makes unrelated work interrupt other users. > - This pull request checks each user's task participation before it permits a toast. > - Users receive relevant task notifications while company views continue to refresh. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Company task activity and agent failures produce noisy toasts for users who have no involvement in the task. Expected behavior A task qualifies when the viewer created it, commented on it, is its assigned user, deliberately acted on it under the Mine rules, or has an explicit user mention in its description or a non-deleted comment. Viewing, agent ownership, responsible-user attribution, and parent participation alone do not qualify. Steps to reproduce 1. Sign in as two users in the same company. 2. Have the second user create and update a task that does not involve the first user. 3. Observe a task toast in the first user's company view before this fix. The duplicate PR search found no existing change for personal task-toast eligibility. ## What Changed - Extract the existing Mine participation predicate without changing Mine behavior. - Compute task eligibility from stored tasks, comments, and run associations after WebSocket access checks. Use an exact indexed comment-mention lookup with `LIMIT 1`. - Add optional `toastEligible` metadata to each viewer's event copy. Keep it off the shared event bus. - Require eligibility for live task activity and task-linked run errors. Suppress generic agent errors. - Continue cache updates for quiet events. Refetch visible comments when authenticated events omit hydration details. Ignore stale socket callbacks after account or company changes. - Document toast semantics and add feature-map and agent-access-map coverage. - Add persisted-data, socket, UI, and authenticated browser regression coverage. ## Verification - Final commit: `1dc4f9402c5883744738cfe236ad00fa0bb5ca4c`. - All 55 current-head checks passed. Two Storybook checks were skipped because this change does not affect that coverage. - Greptile approved this exact commit with 5/5. The security scan passed. Both review threads are resolved. - Local `pnpm build`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - The focused socket/UI suite passed 123 tests. The persisted eligibility suite passed 9 tests, including long history, exact viewer matching, and regex escaping. The existing Mine service suite previously passed 140 tests. - The named browser case `task toasts follow personal involvement in multiplayer` passed against the final commit in an isolated authenticated instance. It used two real sessions, real WebSocket delivery, and persisted tasks, edits, comments, and mentions. It verified quiet unrelated activity, viewing alone, first and historical mentions, own-action suppression, visible-task suppression, and live cache refresh. - A prior-head server shard passed its single rerun after a fixture-cleanup deadlock. The final-head CI run passed without a rerun. - The broad local run remained in progress when CI completed the full test suite. Local focused checks and CI provide the completed test evidence. ## Risks - This intentionally reduces live notifications. A new client stays quiet against an older server that omits eligibility. - Eligibility queries add work to live event delivery. A lookup failure suppresses the toast and still delivers the authorized event. - Deleted mentions cease to qualify unless another participation rule applies. Historical comment authorship retains the existing Mine behavior. - No database migration or notification-settings change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-6 assisted with implementation, tests, documentation, and PR preparation. It used repository tools, shell commands, and browser automation. The runtime did not expose an exact backend revision or context-window size. ## 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 08:09:19 -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

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

aded4197e5

fix: make multiplayer task toasts personal (#16153 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work.
> - A company can have several human users and shared agents.
> - Live task events currently produce toasts for any user who can read the task.
> - This makes unrelated work interrupt other users.
> - This pull request checks each user's task participation before it permits a toast.
> - Users receive relevant task notifications while company views continue to refresh.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

Company task activity and agent failures produce noisy toasts for users who have no involvement in the task.

**Expected behavior**

A task qualifies when the viewer created it, commented on it, is its assigned user, deliberately acted on it under the Mine rules, or has an explicit user mention in its description or a non-deleted comment. Viewing, agent ownership, responsible-user attribution, and parent participation alone do not qualify.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Sign in as two users in the same company.
2. Have the second user create and update a task that does not involve the first user.
3. Observe a task toast in the first user's company view before this fix.

The duplicate PR search found no existing change for personal task-toast eligibility.

## What Changed

- Extract the existing Mine participation predicate without changing Mine behavior.
- Compute task eligibility from stored tasks, comments, and run associations after WebSocket access checks. Use an exact indexed comment-mention lookup with `LIMIT 1`.
- Add optional `toastEligible` metadata to each viewer's event copy. Keep it off the shared event bus.
- Require eligibility for live task activity and task-linked run errors. Suppress generic agent errors.
- Continue cache updates for quiet events. Refetch visible comments when authenticated events omit hydration details. Ignore stale socket callbacks after account or company changes.
- Document toast semantics and add feature-map and agent-access-map coverage.
- Add persisted-data, socket, UI, and authenticated browser regression coverage.

## Verification

- Final commit: `1dc4f9402c5883744738cfe236ad00fa0bb5ca4c`.
- All 55 current-head checks passed. Two Storybook checks were skipped because this change does not affect that coverage.
- Greptile approved this exact commit with 5/5. The security scan passed. Both review threads are resolved.
- Local `pnpm build`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed.
- The focused socket/UI suite passed 123 tests. The persisted eligibility suite passed 9 tests, including long history, exact viewer matching, and regex escaping. The existing Mine service suite previously passed 140 tests.
- The named browser case `task toasts follow personal involvement in multiplayer` passed against the final commit in an isolated authenticated instance. It used two real sessions, real WebSocket delivery, and persisted tasks, edits, comments, and mentions. It verified quiet unrelated activity, viewing alone, first and historical mentions, own-action suppression, visible-task suppression, and live cache refresh.
- A prior-head server shard passed its single rerun after a fixture-cleanup deadlock. The final-head CI run passed without a rerun.
- The broad local run remained in progress when CI completed the full test suite. Local focused checks and CI provide the completed test evidence.

## Risks

- This intentionally reduces live notifications. A new client stays quiet against an older server that omits eligibility.
- Eligibility queries add work to live event delivery. A lookup failure suppresses the toast and still delivers the authorized event.
- Deleted mentions cease to qualify unless another participation rule applies. Historical comment authorship retains the existing Mine behavior.
- No database migration or notification-settings change is required.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex with GPT-6 assisted with implementation, tests, documentation, and PR preparation. It used repository tools, shell commands, and browser automation. The runtime did not expose an exact backend revision or context-window size.

## 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 08:09:19 -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