Files
PaperClipAI/feature-map/tasks.md
T
DottaandPaperclip cc88b61c09 feat: add portable verification skills and refresh the feature map (#15983)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Contributors use the feature map to select verification recipes.
> - The repository needs separate skills to create a verifier, maintain
recipes, and run checks.
> - Shared recipes must match current routes, controls, and
prerequisites.
> - This pull request adds portable verification skills and updates the
existing map.
> - The benefit is a repeatable verification workflow with clear
ownership and evidence limits.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #15288, which added the existing feature map. The related test
cleanup in #15978 changes test ownership; this PR changes skill
instructions and recipes.

**Issue type**

Missing documentation and outdated verification instructions.

**Where is the issue?**

The project-local skills in `.agents/skills/` and the recipes in
`feature-map/`.

**What's wrong?**

The repository lacks the portable creation and maintenance skills. The
verifier mixes live verification with map editing. Some recipes describe
old controls or omit required flags, identities, and provider setup.

**Suggested fix**

Import the skills and their complete references from Paperclip's pstack
fork. Keep the existing map in its current directory. Let the verifier
read recipes and report drift. Let the maintenance skill update the map.

## What Changed

- Add `create-verification-skill` and `maintain-verification-skill` from
the portable fork of Poteto's pstack. Include invocation policies, all
feature-map examples, self-contained attribution notices and the full
MIT license in each skill folder.
- Use the existing `feature-map/` directory and Poteto's recipe format.
Omit the fork's separate runtime skill and runtime-skill dependencies
because Paperclip supplies execution.
- Add `verify-paperclip` with executable launch, readiness, onboarding,
and cleanup helpers. Use isolated temporary data and separate evidence
directories.
- Make `verify-paperclip` consume the map and report recipe drift. Give
map editing to `maintain-verification-skill`.
- Review all 35 feature files and correct 30 recipes. Clarify routes,
flags, current controls, persistence scope, and the limits of linked
tests.
- Remove the unrelated Conference Room flag change from the onboarding
smoke helper.
- Add a standard-library ownership test. It proves that doctor and stop
reject a foreign checkout without stopping its live server. A
delayed-exit fixture also proves cleanup waits for runtime exit.
- Keep audit screenshots and scratch reports outside the repository. No
product code, migrations, lockfile, or workflow changes.

## Verification

- Passed after rebase: metadata validation for all three skills, Python
syntax and executable checks, JavaScript syntax, 35-entry map/index
consistency, relative links, license preservation, and `git diff
--check`.
- Ran one isolated live audit before rebase. Checked task persistence,
document upload/download bytes, goal hierarchy, project edits, search,
local process Agent Chat, question replies, queued-message discard/stop,
and a harmless loopback MCP call.
- Checked local settings and draft flows. Synthetic cost events reached
a small budget limit and paused the test agent. These checks do not
prove external model quality or provider billing.
- Checked cleanup of the audit server, database, local MCP fixture, and
workspace service inventory.
- Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- Greptile: 5/5 on commit `4344ac4df7`. The cleanup finding is fixed and
its review thread is resolved. A fresh review is pending for the notice
relocation.
- Passed: `python3 -m unittest discover -s
.agents/skills/verify-paperclip/tests -v`. Both tests pass: the foreign
fixture stayed alive after rejection, and owned cleanup waited for
delayed runtime exit.
- Passed: `pnpm build`.
- All GitHub CI checks were green on commit `4344ac4df7`. The cloud-auth
browser shard passed after one retry for a disposed mocked API response.
The notice relocation passed skill metadata, relative-link, and
license-preservation checks; fresh CI/review is pending.
- The full local `pnpm test:run` did not complete. It was interrupted
after nearly 30 minutes once the complete CI suite passed on the same
commit. Exit code: 130. The new helper safety tests passed locally. The
local full-suite checklist item stays unchecked.
- Full live coverage is incomplete. Authenticated multi-user checks and
external provider journeys need their own identities, credentials, and
targets.
- The corrected onboarding helper could not be re-tested after removing
the flag mutation. Two fresh launches failed before server startup.
Direct PostgreSQL initialization reported exhausted shared-memory IDs or
limits. The host had free disk space. No host-wide limits or unrelated
instances were changed.

## Risks

- Recipe drift can return as the UI changes. The map records
verification scope, not proof of a passed journey.
- The new helpers assume a source checkout with installed dependencies,
Python, Node, and `lsof`. The onboarding helper also needs Playwright.
- The local audit found observations that need separate investigation:
an action test returned fixture data while the connection control showed
Off and native profiles existed; a failed status-card setup task left
the card showing Setting up. Workspace service start also did not reach
a running state. This PR does not change product behavior or redefine
those outcomes as success.
- The main audit trace did not finalize during browser shutdown.
Screenshots, text captures, and iteration results were retained.
- Live evidence was captured before rebase. The onboarding helper
re-test and full provider/auth qualification remain incomplete.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does
not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size,
or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, read-only
source subagents, file edits, shell commands, and browser automation.

## 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
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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>
2026-10-12 13:31:44 -05:00

3.4 KiB
Raw Blame History

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 with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI

Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use a disposable project. Persistence checks can assign work to Me or leave it unassigned; execution checks additionally need an invokable test agent. Record whether a real or simulated harness handles execution.

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.

Creation is request-first: enter Describe a task…, choose the assignee and project, and submit Create task. A standalone title field is not always shown. Use a human/unassigned task to verify persistence without invoking a model.

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

  • Priority remains an API field, but ordinary priority UI editing is hidden.

  • 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.