mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
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>
2.3 KiB
2.3 KiB
Costs, budgets, and spending controls
Operators inspect recorded spend and configure budget controls for the company, projects, and agents. Hard stops pause or prevent eligible work until the governing incident is resolved.
Implementation: costs and budget host, audit hub.
Sub-features
cost-reporting: inspect spend by the offered time range and resource dimensions.budgets: configure supported company/project/agent limits and inspect usage.incidents: distinguish warnings, hard stops, and manual pauses.resolution: raise or resolve a budget incident through authorized controls and verify resumption.
How to get to it (user POV)
cost-overview
Use Activity → Costs/Budgets in the streamlined shell, /costs in the production shell, or scoped project/agent budget panels.
budget-enforcement
Open the governing budget configuration and any resulting budget incident card.
Driving it
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use synthetic low-cost events and small disposable budgets. Do not buy model usage merely to hit a threshold.
cost-overview
Automated: costs service covers cost contracts; embedded costs UI has narrow Audit-host coverage.
Manual: Inspect a known fixture run and reconcile its recorded spend with the selected report period and resource. Switch company/project filters and reload. Check empty and unavailable cost data without treating missing data as zero spend.
budget-enforcement
Automated: budget service exercises soft incidents, hard stops, scope, and valid budget raises.
Manual: Create a small fixture budget, cross its threshold with synthetic recorded spend, and verify the warning or hard-stop state. Attempt new work and confirm it is gated. Raise the correct budget through an authorized action and verify eligible continuation without clearing unrelated manual pauses.
Gotchas
- Paperclip cost accounting is not a provider invoice or a promise about externally billed spend.
- Company, project, and agent gates can overlap; fixing one may leave another active.
- A successful retry must not bypass an unresolved budget hold.