DottaandPaperclip
45862dd210
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its user journeys span tasks, agents, projects, connected apps, governance, and CLI operations. > - Existing tests do not provide a shared index of entry points and verification steps. > - Contributors need to see which surfaces a change affects and what evidence exists. > - This pull request adds an optional product feature map with recipes and explicit coverage gaps. > - The map adds no CI checks or required maintenance for future pull requests. > - Contributors can use it to find verification steps and state what they checked. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** User-journey verification guidance in AGENTS.md and doc/DEVELOPING.md. **What's wrong?** There is no shared index of product features, user entry points, available test evidence, and remaining coverage gaps. Shared components can hide differences between their hosts. **Suggested fix** Add a documentation-only capability index and verification recipes. The format takes inspiration from [Omnigent's feature map](https://github.com/omnigent-ai/omnigent/tree/91acfbbb59f6fc210ff95a9e9428aadd62e06582/feature-map). The recipes describe Paperclip's own behavior and tests. Searched GitHub PRs and issues for `feature map` and `feature-map`. No duplicate change was found. Checked ROADMAP.md. This PR documents existing capabilities. ## What Changed - Added 35 feature recipes, 171 named sub-features, and 91 entry points across product, CLI, operator, and developer surfaces. - Each recipe describes setup, expected results, existing automated evidence, manual verification, and coverage gaps. - Added a dated source snapshot of 185 non-test page TSX modules in 15 areas. The snapshot describes documentation coverage, not runtime health. - Included entry points within existing pages, CLI/API operations, and experimental surfaces. Identified helper-only test evidence where a rendered journey has no automated proof. - Linked the map from AGENTS.md and doc/DEVELOPING.md as an optional reference. - The final diff contains only Markdown and the inventory JSON. It adds no checker, tests, package commands, workflows, dependencies, scheduled work, or mandatory inventory updates. ## Verification - PASS: local documentation links resolve and the inventory JSON parses. Confirmed the final PR diff contains only 39 documentation files. - PASS: `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'` — 381 existing tests after removal of the feature-map tests. - PASS: `git diff --check`. - Earlier local build and typecheck passed. The full local test run was stopped after 26 minutes with failures in unchanged chat-channel and native-runner integration tests. It did not complete. These application checks were not repeated for the documentation-only removal. - [CI on the preceding head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37398407523) passed all applicable checks. Checks on the final documentation-only head are pending. - PASS: Greptile review on final head `45c4b0aeb26540324825da43e81bee2336ad1c1f` is 5/5. There are no unresolved findings. - Live product/provider journeys were not run to author the map. The recipes identify available evidence and manual steps, not new qualification results. ## Risks Low product risk: the PR changes documentation only. Recipes and the source snapshot can become stale. Maintenance is optional and based on review. Linked tests do not prove that every documented journey works. The map states remaining coverage gaps. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository inspection, reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving 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 - [ ] 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>
Paperclip feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
Features
The map is organized by user capability, not by source file. It covers 35 feature families across the product, CLI, and operator workflows, checked against source on 2026-10-05. Experimental and developer-only surfaces are labeled explicitly. Each recipe includes sub-features, current entry points, automated evidence, manual verification steps, and gotchas.
Getting started and access
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Onboarding and first work | Instance setup, company wizard, first agent and task. |
| Login, invitations, and access | Sessions, bootstrap, membership, roles, and CLI authorization. |
| Companies and portability | Company switching/settings, archival, package import/export. |
Tasks and conversations
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Task creation and lifecycle | Creation, assignment, lists, properties, comments, and completion. |
| Delegation, dependencies, and signoff | Child work, prerequisites, reviewers, and task-tree controls. |
| Inbox, decisions, and search | Personal triage, decision queues, unread/blocked views, and search. |
| Agent conversations and project handoff | Persistent conversations, discovery, handoff, and gated board chat. |
| Questions and approvals | Question/plan responses, formal approvals, and app-tool review. |
| Steering and queued messages | Follow-ups, queue edits, interruption, and pause/resume. |
| Documents, attachments, and work products | Versioned documents, annotations, files, outputs, and artifact library. |
Agents and reusable capabilities
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Hiring, configuration, and organization | Agent identity, instructions, reporting lines, lifecycle, and built-ins. |
| Runs, harnesses, and model accounts | Adapter/model setup, account validation, transcripts, and run history. |
| Skills and Skill Studio | Discovery, sources, authoring, revisions, tests, and agent policies. |
| Team packages and installation | Catalog preview/install via CLI/API; catalog UI availability called out. |
Projects and execution
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Projects and repositories | Project lifecycle, task context, repository configuration, and defaults. |
| Goals and work alignment | Goal hierarchy, ownership, status, and project/task context. |
| Workspaces, services, and files | Provisioning, task bindings, services/logs, Git/files, and closure. |
| Execution environments | Local, SSH, sandbox providers, target probes, and custom images. |
| Recovery | Stopped work, workspace repair, bounded continuation, and reconnect. |
Apps, channels, and extensions
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Connection setup | Catalog, MCP links, task requests, authentication, and setup resumption. |
| App access and action permissions | Agent grants, off/ask/allowed actions, discovery, tests, and revocation. |
| External chat and email | Provider-specific identity, threads, files, delivery, and endpoint upkeep. |
| Tool gateways and access profiles | Tool exposure, client configuration, tokens, profiles, and activity. |
| Secrets and proposals | Company/user credentials, grants, proposals, and vault import. |
| Plugins | Installation/configuration, contributed pages/tools, and lifecycle. |
Automation and structured work
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Routines, schedules, and triggers | Definitions, variables, scheduled/webhook/manual runs, and history. |
| Pipelines, review queues, and learnings | Experimental stages, automation, items, review, and learning records. |
| Cases | Experimental structured fields, relationships, revisions, and task links. |
| Status cards | Experimental summaries, watched work, refresh history, and settings. |
Oversight and operation
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Costs and budgets | Spend reports, scoped limits, incidents, hard stops, and resumption. |
| Dashboards and audit trails | Company health, live work, activity, runs, routines, and timeline. |
| Navigation, profile, and announcements | Sidebar state, favorites/recents, personal identity, and dismissals. |
| Instance operations | Installation, updates, service health, configuration, and backups. |
| CLI/API and local worktrees | Explicit context, resource commands, outputs, runs, and isolated instances. |
Contributor surfaces
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Developer previews and diagnostic labs | Design examples, interaction fixtures, performance checks; not production acceptance. |
These are verification instructions, not a claim that every journey passed a live test. A component test proves its component; a scripted provider proves that fixture integration. Record executed results separately from the map.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, the existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature filename and entry-point ID, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result, command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant, without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The UI coverage inventory accounts for every non-test TSX
module under ui/src/pages, including supporting panels, legacy variants, and
labs. Every product area now links to concrete recipes. Partial means the
area still has the named variant or workflow gaps; unmapped is reserved for
an area with no recipe. These statuses describe documentation, not runtime health.
The page inventory is a source snapshot dated 2026-10-05. The map also includes entry points hosted inside other modules (pipeline Review Queue and Learnings, task documents, onboarding), CLI-only operations, and operator work. The team recipe explicitly distinguishes the current CLI/API path from catalog UI components without a current top-level route. Refer to route registration and the CLI registry when changing reachability.
Remaining depth includes complete provider/auth/attachment matrices, every harness/model/environment capability combination, third-party plugin features, and every role/error/mobile/legacy-shell permutation. The recipes name relevant gaps instead of equating source presence with a working user journey. The index can include capabilities that do not add a page file.
Maintaining the reference
The map is documentation only. It adds no CI checks, automatic journey execution, or required inventory updates for future pull requests.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior and that local references still exist. Refresh the inventory snapshot when it helps explain the current product. Maintenance is optional and review-based.
Each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
The format is inspired by Omnigent's feature map. Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.