mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 07:12:00 +01:00
cf1def0ca62ade260eae155a2f34c2bfdca91ca1
7
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
cf1def0ca6 |
feat(inbox): rebuild compact cards and share task review controls (#20961)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - The inbox collects decisions, requests, and updates for the people in a company. > - People need a clear personal queue and a consistent way to answer each request. > - Repeated headings, inconsistent card actions, and separate review flows make that work harder. > - This pull request connects the inbox UI to the routing foundation in #20959. > - Compact cards use shared task controls and open supporting work in a side panel. > - People can answer, claim, transfer, archive, and inspect outcomes from one place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The inbox cards, personal views, shared task controls, and decision history. **Subsystem affected** UI. This PR targets master and uses the routing foundation merged in #20959. **Current behavior** The inbox repeats headings and counts. Cards have different layouts and action placement. The requester can repeat the signed-in person's name. Review and question controls differ between the inbox and task thread. **Proposed behavior** Open Assigned to you by default. Show one count line above the cards. Use a compact card layout with consistent actions and supporting details. Show the requester's avatar and name only when they differ from the signed-in person. Share question controls, including a radio option for Other that reveals a text field when selected. **Reason and benefit** People can scan their queue and complete requests without losing the surrounding task or creating separate drafts for the same review. **Breaking changes** The default inbox view becomes personal. The all-assignee and shared views remain available. Card close menus distinguish personal archive and snooze from shared withdrawal. **Additional context** Refs #20959, #19363, and #19520. Refs #20268 for related actionable-request work. This stack adds personal routing and shared controls. ROADMAP.md includes Multiple Human Users and Agent Reviews and Approvals. ## What Changed - Add personal, unassigned, company, all-assignee, and archived inbox views. Add claim, transfer, personal close actions, receipts, and history controls. - Use compact decision cards with a single count line, one-pixel borders, and equal space above, below, and to the right of each primary action. - Open artifacts and synchronized confirmation/approval controls in a shared side panel. Share their revision drafts and action state with the task thread. Other requests keep one editable form on the inbox card while reviewing an artifact. - Make Other match the question options and reveal its field only when selected. Apply this to inbox and task question cards. - Hide self-requester labels, space agent avatars, and use the standard canceled status icon for withdrawn requests. - Use connector logos in connector cards. Keep the connector promotion background and sidebar border continuous. - Add company and project decision-owner controls and document the updated inbox behavior. ## Verification - The complete [GitHub Actions CI matrix](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/43141559641) passes on `8d81a75e49b518fff6b6ff4c23dd67979b0b97ee` (Linux/Node 24: typecheck, build, general and serialized tests, Runner support, browser shards, and aggregate gates). Greptile is 5/5 on that exact head with zero open findings, and the security scan passes. - Local UI typechecking passes. Eight focused suites pass 382 tests: 236 inbox/review/question/connector tests plus all 146 composer tests. Regressions passed red to green for attachment links, prompt rendering, single-form artifact review, connector scope copy, accessible headings, and the composer test harness's missing theme provider. The final commit changes only that test harness; production code is unchanged from `59d015833f`. - Browser acceptance on the production implementation confirms preserved selected answers with one editable question form, accessible Markdown prompts, inert image references, accurate connector scope copy, native PDF downloads, image sidebar previews, and Open file requesting the attachment endpoint while preserving the inbox URL. Request reads and file responses were intercepted; no question answers were written. The preview is healthy on the final head. - Visual and interaction checks cover Other radio behavior in both themes and on mobile, the loaded Google Calendar logo, and 20px above, below, and to the right of the primary action across all 23 visible cards. The affected desktop/mobile navigation and sidebar specs pass locally and in the final CI browser matrix. - Real-editor browser checks confirm Ctrl/Cmd+Enter cannot bypass another person's confirmation. Cancel preserves the draft and unlocks silently; Continue submits once. Approval write failures remain visible. - `pnpm verify` returns exit 2 because DESIGN.md requires broader coverage; the final full CI matrix supplies every requested gate. Maps and Storybook catalog structural checks pass. The routing foundation #20959 merged after passing 249 database tests, server typechecking, full CI, Greptile 5/5, and security scanning. Its backend and SDK registry are preserved. - Demo data is retained for testing; database suites and browser specs use separate disposable databases. ## Risks - The inbox uses the routing contracts merged in #20959. Personal filters and history affect shared task entry points; the affected controls are included in local regression coverage and full CI. - Personal defaults and close-menu wording change inbox behavior. Existing resolver permissions still control shared actions. - Shared revision state and live invalidation affect two surfaces. Focused tests cover draft synchronization, action locks, and incoming updates. - Visual changes use the existing design tokens and component primitives. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used repository tools, code execution, and browser checks. This session does not expose a more specific runtime model ID or its 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 described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run focused 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: Scott Tong <scott@scottsmbpm5max.lan> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
369e238295 |
fix(projects): make workspace storage the project's only placement choice (#20835)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A repository project gets its working files from core staging or from a workspace storage plugin > - #20459 reported that an installed storage plugin attached every new repository project, so sandbox agents could not use those projects > - #20587 fixed creation with an **Available in** choice that selects storage > - #20651 then saved an environment on every new project and used it before the agent default to place runs. That solved a problem that did not exist: the project needs storage, not a run environment > - Creation saves the first environment of the chosen group, so a project silently sends every agent's runs to that environment. Project Configuration also shows two controls (Environment and Workspace storage) for one decision > - This pull request removes the project run environment and makes storage the only placement choice a project owns. Storage is fixed at creation > - The benefit is that runs follow the agent again, and project settings show one clear, read-only fact about storage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20459. Follow-up to #20587 and #20651. Refs #11644. That issue asks for a project-level run environment override. This pull request removes the override that #20651 added for it, because the override is not necessary to fix #20459. #11644 stays a separate feature request. Related: #18176 (open) repairs placement through the legacy workspace-policy field. This pull request does not restore project placement, so it conflicts with the direction of #18176. ## What Changed - **Remove the project run environment.** Migration `0466` drops `projects.environment_id`. Run placement no longer reads the project. Runs use the agent default, then the instance default, then local execution. The low-trust task sandbox and the enforced sandbox policies keep their precedence. - **Keep the #20651 recovery and binding guards.** A recovered run still uses its admitted environment lease (source `run`). Company-binding checks before admission and during lease creation stay. - **Keep the creation choice.** **Available in** in New Project still selects storage. It still shows only when the environments need more than one storage owner. That can only occur when a storage plugin is installed. `POST /projects` with `environmentId` selects the storage of that environment and does not save the environment. - **Fix storage at creation.** `PATCH /projects/:id` rejects any storage change with `409 project_storage_locked`, from core to a plugin and from a plugin to core. Before, a core project could move to a plugin. - **Drop legacy writes.** Older clients can still send `executionWorkspacePolicy.environmentId`. The service removes it on create and update. - **Simplify Project Configuration.** Remove the Environment and Workspace storage selectors. Show an advisory **Available in** list of the environments that can use the project's storage. Show it when a storage plugin is installed or when the project uses one. When the project's plugin is not installed, show **Storage plugin unavailable**. Without a storage plugin, show nothing. - **Issue workspace card.** Remove the "project default" environment label. - **Shared contract.** Remove `Project.environmentId`, the `environmentId` project field, and `expectedStorageProviderPluginId` from the update schema. The create schema keeps `environmentId` and `expectedStorageProviderPluginId` from #20587. - **Docs and maps.** Update `doc/project-environment-compatibility.md`, `docs/api/goals-and-projects.md`, and the project feature and agent-access maps. - **SDK source pins.** Refresh `tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.json` for the two shared files. The shared file blobs return to their values before #20651. The refresh also corrects the `pnpm-lock.yaml` pin and `lockSha256`: `master` pins an older lockfile blob than the one it contains. ## Verification - Targeted server suites pass (227 tests): `project-environments`, `project-workspace-provider.integration`, `heartbeat/environment-selection`, `execution-workspace-policy`, `environment-selection-route-guards`, `environment-run-orchestrator`, `openapi-routes`. - Related server suites pass (349 tests): `environment-service`, `environment-routes`, `plugin-workspaces.integration`, `issues-service`. - Targeted UI suites pass: `ProjectProperties.concurrency`, `IssueWorkspaceCard`, `NewProjectDialog`, `NewProjectDialog.managed-sandbox`, `ProjectDetail`. - New tests: - Creation saves storage, not an environment. Core and plugin projects both reject a storage change with `project_storage_locked`. - A legacy policy `environmentId` is dropped on create and update. - A new run follows the agent default for any project. A recovered run keeps its admitted lease after the agent default changes. - Project Configuration has no storage or environment selector. The note is hidden without a plugin. It lists the core or plugin environments for the project's storage. It shows **Storage plugin unavailable** for a removed plugin. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`, `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`, and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check` pass. - Not run locally: the full `pnpm test:run`, `pnpm build`, and browser suites. CI supplies that coverage. - Manual check: open Project Configuration on an instance with a storage plugin. Confirm that there is no Environment or Workspace storage selector, and that **Available in** lists the environments. ## Risks - **Migration.** `0466` drops `projects.environment_id` and its foreign key. The migration deletes the saved project environments. Apply it before you serve the new revision. An old server revision that reads `projects` fails until it stops. This is the same pattern as earlier drop-column migrations (`0229`, `0289`). - **Behavior change for existing projects.** Projects created after #20651 shipped have a saved environment that overrides the agent. After this change, their runs follow the agent default again. This is the intended fix. Before #20651, a project environment selection was not applied to runs (#11644), so no older behavior is lost. - **No path from core to a plugin.** A core project, including one created before a plugin was installed, cannot move to the plugin. To use plugin storage, create a new project. - **API.** A `PATCH` that sends `environmentId` or `expectedStorageProviderPluginId` no longer has an effect. The schema strips these fields. > 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 - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) by Anthropic, in Claude Code, with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). Extended thinking was available. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
6204239cfc |
Support installed default project workspace providers (#17247)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Storage plugins already own project storage and task checkout preparation. > - Core only selected these plugins through an explicit project policy. > - Installation could therefore leave new and existing projects on incompatible Core preparation. > - This pull request adds one generic manifest declaration and one shared effective-policy resolver. > - Project configuration shows inheritance while durable workspace bindings retain their owners. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Plugin contracts, project configuration, and execution workspace preparation. **Problem or motivation** An installed storage provider cannot become the company default. Projects without an explicit provider keep Core preparation, even when their execution environment cannot use a Core Git checkout. **Proposed solution** A provider declares supported `workspaceProvider.defaultForProjects` mode and strategy. Company-enabled installations supply inherited defaults. Explicit plugin selections and explicit Core/local (`storageProviderPluginId: null`) win. Conflicting defaults require an operator choice. The declaration and implementation contain no provider-specific identifiers. **Alternatives considered** Rewriting every project would lose the distinction between inheritance and overrides. Selecting by worker health would silently change storage on an outage. **Roadmap alignment** Extends the existing workspace and sandbox provider contracts. The roadmap has no duplicate default-provider implementation. Related public work includes #17243, which covers prepared execution directories rather than provider selection. ## What Changed - Add a validated generic default-provider declaration and document it in the SDK. - Resolve provider selection and Git defaults consistently in project responses, source selection, heartbeat source resolution, reservation, and preparation. - Keep stored policy separate from effective configuration. Add the normal project configuration selector for inheritance, explicit plugins, and Core/local. - Preserve existing local and plugin workspace ownership. Pin selection through preparation and keep provider failures visible. - Add database, API, manifest, heartbeat, and UI regressions. Update the verification maps. ## Verification - Targeted Vitest runs cover manifest validation, project defaults and API access, explicit overrides, existing ownership, new/imported task inheritance, heartbeat routing, source-free tasks, selection pinning during setup, and UI configuration. - Combined policy, provider integration, and heartbeat run: 58 tests pass; 60 unrelated cases excluded. After the final shared-provider fallback fix, all 47 policy tests pass, including shared and operator-mode regressions. - Server and UI TypeScript checks, SDK build, verification-map validation, credential-pattern scan, added-comment scan, and `git diff --check` pass. - A downstream integration uses this Core resolver and preparation service with a real storage hook and mocked remote infrastructure. A new Git project reaches the hook without a stored provider ID. - Standard Greptile and Apex both scored 5/5 on |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3bbc2104b6 |
docs: map missing product and operator capabilities (#16990)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map records product entry points and verification recipes. > - The paired agent access map records APIs and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. > - The new index in #16987 made several missing capabilities easier to find. > - Those gaps hid existing assistant, privacy, cost, and operator workflows. > - This pull request adds 15 capabilities with source references, test scope, and manual checks. > - Readers can find these workflows without treating documentation or structural checks as live proof. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16987. Related map work: #16025 and #16214. A search of related pull requests found no duplicate of these additions. **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/` and `maps/agent-access-map/`. **What's wrong?** The maps omit public assistant MCP connections, private task and project sharing, subscription fees, cost-recording recovery, agent API keys, keyboard entry points, and several operator CLI workflows. **Suggested fix** Add product recipes and matching access records. Show the full capability IDs in the README index and each page. Keep the existing ID format and all 175 existing IDs. Exclude AI account pools. ## What Changed - Add the `assistant-connections` family with setup, consent, device login, client use, and revocation. - Add `tasks/privacy`, `projects/privacy`, `budgets-costs/subscriptions`, and `budgets-costs/accounting-recovery`. - Add `agents/api-keys`, `agents/managed-agent-setup`, and `navigation-preferences/command-palette`. - Add `cli-operations/feedback-export`, `chat-channels/outbound-email`, and `instance-operations/runtime-setup`. - Pair all 15 additions with access rules, source evidence, manual checks, and explicit coverage gaps. Update the visible index to 35 families and 190 capability IDs. - Add cross-links from existing access, connection setup, search, and CLI recipes. Do not change the schema or add AI account pools. - Clarify that the task Share sheet displays direct and inherited access. Manage inherited access at its ancestor or project source. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes: 35 areas and 190 paired capability IDs, with valid references and contract fields. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes: 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - A comparison with the base confirms all 175 existing IDs remain and exactly the intended 15 IDs were added. The README index matches the discovered feature metadata. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` cannot run because this checkout lacks `storybook/internal/csf-tools` and installed workspace dependencies. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build` were attempted. All stopped before their task ran: the pnpm 9.15.4 bootstrap could not fetch and verify its registry packages in this environment. - Source review covers the documented UI, CLI, routes, services, and existing tests. No live browser, provider, or authorization journey was run. New access records remain `baseline`, `source-only`, and `not-run`. - Greptile and the Paperclip reviewer both rate current commit `bb8eb797b0a1dc26256faf2f0e57cbe7abc9adcf` 5/5. The inherited-access review thread is resolved. - [GitHub CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39466772379) passes for that commit, including typecheck, build, unit tests, Runner checks, and browser tests. Browser shard 7 passed after one retry for a runner shutdown. All PR checks are successful, neutral, or skipped. ## Risks - Low runtime risk: this change only edits maps. No application behavior, API, dependency, or schema changes. - Source-reviewed recipes can drift or miss deployment-specific behavior. The records state their limits and require live checks before a capability is marked verified. > 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 ID `gpt-6.1-sol`, 475,000-token context window, xhigh reasoning effort, with tool use and code execution. ## 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> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
473c80d13f |
Automatically import and update project repository skills (#16066)
Automatically import skills from new GitHub project repositories and update enabled sources in the background. Preserve project-derived access, saved selections, immutable execution versions and explicit pins; add legacy adoption, refresh and connection repair in Sources. Include durable scheduling and bounded work credits, production Storybook journeys, real GitHub-to-routine acceptance receipts and final-head CI/security/Greptile qualification. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
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> |