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>
2.9 KiB
Task creation and lifecycle
People create, assign, organize, discuss, and finish tasks. A task retains its owner, project, priority, history, and outputs as it moves through the work lifecycle.
Implementation: new task, task list, task detail.
Sub-features
create: capture a title/request with the intended agent, project, and attachments.organize: filter, sort, group, and navigate tasks without losing the selected context.properties: change status, priority, assignee, project, and relationships where authorized.discussion: persist comments, references, and files on the task.completion: distinguish backlog, active work, review, blocked, done, and cancelled outcomes.
How to get to it (user POV)
new-task
Use New task from the global launcher, task list, or project task view.
task-list
Open /issues or a project’s Issues view; legacy /tasks links redirect.
task-detail
Open /issues/:issueId from a row, mention, or direct link.
Driving it
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use an invokable test agent and a project; record whether a real or simulated harness handles the request.
new-task
Automated: creation dialog is component coverage with mocked requests.
Manual: Create a uniquely named task with an agent and project. Open its resulting link and reload. Confirm text, attachment, assignment, and project persisted, and verify execution started only when the task and agent are eligible.
task-list
Automated: task-list helpers cover search URLs, pagination, deduplication, and presentation constants. The suite does not render the page or exercise filtering, grouping, opening a task, and returning; those interactions still need a running-browser check.
Manual: Filter by status and assignee, change grouping/sort, open a task, and return. Verify the correct records and selected view survive navigation and reload. Include an empty result and a failed request.
task-detail
Automated: task detail covers component behavior, while issue service covers server contracts.
Manual: Add a comment and edit authorized properties. Reload and verify history, actor, and values. Complete a disposable task and inspect its deliverable; reopen through an available action and confirm the next execution follows current policy.
Gotchas
- A status label alone does not prove that the requested work exists.
- Single-assignee and atomic checkout rules still apply when tasks are created from different hosts.
- Use coordination, steering, and documents for their distinct workflows.