Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip e6dcd1e8e9 feat: add Commentary to Audit with filters and shareable messages (#16884)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents can submit suggestions and complaints while they work.
> - Operators currently need database access to read those messages.
> - That makes it hard to find feedback from one agent or share a
specific message.
> - This pull request adds a standard Commentary tab in Audit.
> - Operators can filter messages, browse 50 at a time, and share links
to full message dialogs.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #15367, which added feedback storage and agent submission. The
duplicate search found no open PR for a commentary reader.

**Subsystem affected**

Server, shared API contracts, and the board UI.

**Problem or motivation**

Agent suggestions and complaints are stored but have no board reader.
Operators must query the database to inspect feedback.

**Proposed solution**

Add Commentary to Audit without an experimental toggle. Show previews,
agent and message-type filters, text search, and 50-message pages.
Opening a row updates the URL. A copied URL opens the full message with
its agent, task, and run context.

**Alternatives considered**

Direct database queries remain useful for operators, but do not provide
a normal product workflow. An experimental setting would add setup to a
read-only audit page.

**Roadmap alignment**

This completes the operator view for the existing feedback feature. It
supports human oversight and does not change agent execution or task
ownership.

## What Changed

- Add company-scoped, board-only list and detail endpoints with audit
permission and source-task privacy checks.
- Return bounded previews and counts. Fetch full bodies only when a
message opens.
- Add the Commentary tab, search, filters, 50-row pagination, and
URL-based selection. Audit tab destinations work in both layouts, with a
classic sidebar entry for Commentary.
- Add production Storybook examples for populated, filtered, linked,
long, paginated, empty, loading, failed, denied, mobile, and light
states.
- Update API documentation and the feature and agent access maps.

## Verification

- Final head `abc4a251c14cfbfec007542214beec528f2b18bf`: 55 checks pass;
two conditional Storybook checks are skipped. The PR workflow is
successful. Greptile is 5/5 with all findings resolved.
- Focused database, HTTP, submission, OpenAPI, and UI regression tests
cover company isolation, task privacy, filter bounds, 50-row pagination,
and copied message links.
- Browser Storybook journeys cover row opening, direct links, combined
filters, search, and pagination. Storybook uses synthetic API fixtures;
database authorization is tested separately.
- Token gates, feature maps, and Storybook catalog validation pass.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm build-storybook` pass on
the rebased branch. All 80 focused tests and all 37 Audit tests pass,
including the real App route table in both layouts, task
grant/revocation through HTTP, deleted-task privacy, and URL UI
regressions. The full suite passes in the parallel PR CI matrix. The
local serial full-suite run was stopped before completion after checking
the recorded 94-minute serial duration. Local focused tests, workspace
typecheck, production build, and final server/UI checks pass.
- The linked-message Storybook test initially asserted against the
loading dialog. It now waits for the message body; both direct-link and
row-open journeys pass.
- Native and legacy deleted-task privacy regressions failed before the
fix and pass afterward. The reader checks the run task binding after the
task foreign key clears.
- A rapid search-then-agent-filter browser regression reproduced the
search overwriting the selected agent. The pending search now restarts
when URL filters change. The same browser test passes with both filters
applied.
- CI found two existing AuditHub assertions that still expected five
tabs. They now assert the six-tab model and selected-company Commentary
rendering. All 37 Audit tests pass. All other test and build jobs passed
before this test-only correction.

- The [agent-chat attachment browser
test](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39307881171/job/118250189664)
timed out waiting for an attachment preview. The [same shard passed on
the prior
head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39306658703/job/118245498343)
with identical application code; the intervening change only updates
AuditHub unit tests. The single retry passed on the same head. The
precise cause of the earlier failure remains unconfirmed.

## Risks

- Commentary may contain sensitive task context. The reader requires
board access and audit permission, and filters source-task visibility
before returning previews, counts, or full bodies.
- Text search scans stored message bodies. Pages are bounded and full
bodies are fetched on demand.
- Offset pagination can shift if new messages arrive while paging.
Ordering uses timestamp and ID for stable ties.
- No database migration or agent submission behavior changes are
required.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use, browser
interaction, and code execution. The exact backend model ID and
context-window size are 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
- [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>
2026-10-19 14:21:13 -05:00
..

Paperclip maps

The maps describe the same capabilities from two perspectives:

  • Feature map: what a person can do, where to reach it, and how to verify the user journey. Preserve its Poteto format.
  • Agent access map: the APIs and agent entry points for those capabilities, their permission boundaries, and access verification.

These are sibling directories under maps/. Each feature file has a same-named agent access companion. Reuse the product map's sub-feature IDs, so tasks/create identifies the same capability in both maps. Product behavior remains governed by the implementation spec; a map cannot grant authority or redefine a permission denial as success.

Access contract

Every business operation needs both an API and a usable agent entry point for an actor authorized to perform it. A dedicated tool is optional when REST, the CLI, an assigned MCP client, or native search_api / call_api already provides the operation. Record which agent surfaces actually have that path; an installed CLI or optional MCP package cannot be assumed available to every native/remote run.

Track these independently:

Dimension Values and meaning
API present, missing, not-applicable, or unreviewed. Use exact methods/paths; distinguish protocols from REST.
Agent access available, partial, missing, restricted, operator-only, not-applicable, or unreviewed. Name the supported surface and actual entry point.
Policy Actor, action/grant, company/resource/ownership scope, responsible-user intersection, run requirements, work modes, and gates relevant to the operation.
Evidence source-only, verified, failed, blocked, or not-run. Source presence and successful board calls are not agent verification.
Review depth baseline records representative operations and known gaps; operation-reviewed enumerates the capability's meaningful operations and their individual access contracts.

Broad capabilities such as task properties must be split into operations before they count as operation-reviewed: renaming, metadata edits, assignment, dependencies, and lifecycle changes can use different tools and permission rules. An available read path cannot certify a write path. List/get/create/update/delete, execution/control, credential handling, and resolution are separate where their authority or transport differs. Do not duplicate request schemas from OpenAPI.

Exceptions and restrictions

Presentation-only state, static developer fixtures, and pre-start/local operator work may use not-applicable for a domain API, with a concrete reason and the existing local path. When a capability combines shared data with presentation, split the operations: browser recents do not exempt resource lookup from API coverage. Promoting local state to a shared feature requires revisiting the entry.

A board-only endpoint is restricted for agent identity, not an automatic exception or a missing API. Cite the enforced policy and record whether the agent can request the authorized human's action and observe its result. An unresolved delegation question remains in Gaps. Company access, a job title, a personal assistant's OAuth grant, or an accepted interaction does not grant board identity. Keep budget, approval, secret and execution authority intact.

Check actual route/service authorization and production tool admission. OpenAPI actor labels and scenario/evaluation tool declarations are supporting metadata; record disagreements rather than using them as proof of access. Native API fallback restrictions, tool field/scope limits, and rollout settings are part of the agent path, even when a legacy agent can call the REST endpoint directly.

Companion file format

Each agent-access-map/<area>.md has an H1, a relative link to its product file, followed by one H2 backticked ID per product sub-feature. Each capability contains these fields:

  • Review: baseline or operation-reviewed.
  • API: presence state and exact operation IDs, or a reasoned exception.
  • Agent access: availability state and concrete entry points by surface.
  • Policy: relevant permission and runtime boundaries, with source references.
  • Evidence: evidence state, reviewed commit and sources or executed proof.
  • Verification: allowed/denied assertions and observable result; record what has actually run separately from the proposed recipe.
  • Gaps: missing APIs/paths, discovery drift, unreviewed operations or policy decisions; use none only for the enumerated scope that was reviewed.

For an operation-reviewed capability, use H3 backticked operation IDs and repeat API, Agent access, Policy, Evidence, Verification and Gaps for each operation. Use small operation names such as create, update, read, or run-now. The enclosing capability has Review: operation-reviewed only after its meaningful operations have been enumerated. The following excerpt shows one operation; include the others before using that review label:

## `definition`

Review: `operation-reviewed`.

### `create`

API: `present` — POST /api/companies/{companyId}/routines.
Agent access: `available` — agent REST, CLI routine create and native call_api
under the enabled rollout and active-run/mode gates.
Policy: same company; assigneeAgentId must be the calling agent; cite the
routine authorization and native API policy sources.
Evidence: `source-only` — reviewed commit and source links; no live proof.
Verification: `not-run` — create an owned routine; reject assignment to another
agent; inspect saved configuration, attribution and retry behavior.
Gaps: verify ownership and responsible-user resolution with a permitted agent
context; source presence alone does not qualify this operation.

Keeping the maps synchronized

When a change adds/removes a capability or changes its behavior, API, permission, tool binding, CLI support, or work mode, update the affected companion and product recipe as appropriate in the same change. Preserve IDs across renames where the capability is unchanged; update the affected cross-links together. Indexes discover recipes automatically. An API-only change may update the companion without rewriting unchanged user instructions.

maintain-verification-skill owns reconciliation of both maps. It follows changed source and authorization, checks real agent reachability, and records product gaps without implementing them during a maintenance pass. The creation skill uses this structure. verify-paperclip consumes the relevant recipes and reports evidence/drift; map editing belongs to maintenance.

Run the structural check after map changes:

node scripts/check-maps.mjs

It checks paired areas/IDs, navigation metadata, required fields, and local references. It does not certify endpoint authorization, production bindings, operation completeness, or live behavior. Source audits must check those against the existing API and tool contracts; avoid a second schema catalog or runtime.

For live access proof, use Paperclip's existing API/runner/MCP fixtures or an owned isolated instance. Use the actual agent identity, target and work mode. Assert the allowed result and relevant denial (another company/private resource, wrong owner, missing grant, invalid run, restricted mode or resolver). Mutations also need persisted state/attribution and retry behavior. Capture evidence using the existing artifact workflow; keep executed run results separate from generated maps/generated/coverage.json, which lists page references.

Local authorship and generated indexes

Change only the recipes, access contracts and stories whose behavior or intent changed. Feature recipes own navigation metadata; stories own small parameters.paperclip annotations. Do not register entries or refresh counts in shared READMEs, inventories, fingerprints or review journals.

node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs validates and generates aggregate navigation, Storybook data, verification routes and the page inventory. All outputs live in ignored maps/generated/, ui/storybook/generated/, and the ignored Storybook preview.tsx wrapper. Start/build and UI typechecking generate their own inputs. A clean merged checkout therefore assembles both branches' changes automatically.

Git provides history and diffs. PRs, issues and CI artifacts retain review/run evidence for the named revision. Capability associations do not create whole-file review dependencies. Keep durable scenario limits in the affected recipe or story.