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>
3.1 KiB
Documents, attachments, and work products
People read and revise task documents, annotate specific content, open attached files, and inspect the outputs an agent hands back. The artifact library provides another route to the same work.
Implementation: task documents, artifact library, document panel.
Sub-features
documents: edit versioned task documents and inspect or restore revisions.annotations: attach feedback to document content and inspect resolution state.attachments: upload, preview, and download allowed files with company access checks.work-products: link deliverables to their source task, resource, and review context.library: search, filter, group, and open artifact stacks.
How to get to it (user POV)
task-document
Open a document from the task thread or document side panel.
task-output
Open an attachment, output card, or file link from a task.
artifact-library
Open /artifacts and its grouping, search, and media controls.
Driving it
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use a task with a text document, a small attachment, and a generated work product. Use nonsensitive fixture files.
task-document
Automated: documents service, annotations, and revision restore cover server contracts.
Manual: Edit a paragraph, save, reload, and compare revisions. Add an annotation to a specific selection and inspect it after another edit. Resolve it through the supported action. Restore a disposable revision and confirm the new current document and history agree.
task-output
Automated: attachment routes and work products cover data/access behavior; artifact arrival browser suite targets the arrival experience.
Manual: Upload a fixture and have the test task produce an output. Preview and download each, compare the contents, and follow the source task link. Reload and test an inaccessible user/company; verify missing workspace-only resources have an explicit state.
artifact-library
Automated: artifact page covers grouping, search requests, and pagination using mocks.
Manual: Find the task’s output through search and grouping, open its stack, page through results, and reload a direct stack link. Confirm the same file/content appears as from the task.
Gotchas
- A local path is not automatically an uploaded artifact accessible to another user.
- A preview screenshot is not proof that download bytes or revision references are correct.
- Version conflicts and stale annotations must stay visible rather than silently targeting different content.