Files
PaperClipAI/maps
0b0e53029f fix: recover saved workspace results automatically (#15824)
## Thinking Path

- Paperclip preserves accepted agent results before workspace copyback
and result commitment.
- A replaced controller can leave a physical copyback owner receipt
behind. A lost database lock or expired lease cannot prove that its
tar/Git children stopped.
- Infrastructure recovery should belong to the runtime and deployment
harness; task users should not investigate processes or attest shutdown.
- New receipts record the exact deployment. The harness independently
verifies that deployment fully stopped and signs a short-lived proof
bound to the stack, run, owner and deployment.
- The existing guarded reconciler then finishes the same accepted result
without a new agent turn. Legacy receipts retain the documented
administrator API after independent platform verification.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

An accepted native result can remain at `workspace_finalizing` with an
abandoned physical copyback owner. Repeated recovery sweeps could
replace specific instructions with advice to start new agent work. The
first version of this PR exposed a shutdown-evidence form in the task;
that asks end users to resolve infrastructure details.

**Expected behavior**

Automatically verify and recover the exact stopped deployment, preserve
the original accepted result and existing approval/monitor waits, and
show only a quiet task status. Unknown or live workers must remain
fenced. Older receipts without platform identity need independently
verified operator assistance through the administrator API.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Persist an accepted native result and a copyback receipt from a prior
controller.
2. Replace that deployment before workspace finalization commits.
3. Let the normal finalization reconciler revisit the saved result.
4. With a platform-bound receipt and a fully stopped deployment,
recovery should finish automatically. With missing, live, unverifiable
or changed ownership, it must not write files or create another provider
turn.

Related public work: #14402 introduced copyback ownership; #9687 handles
dead-run finalize barriers; #15795 handles terminal stale-run cleanup.
This change addresses an accepted result whose physical copyback owner
prevents commitment.

## What Changed

- Record Railway project, environment, service and deployment identity
on new physical copyback owners.
- Request read-only platform verification from the managed cloud
harness. Require an Ed25519 stop receipt with a disjoint purpose,
configured signing key, exact stack/run/owner/deployment binding and
valid expiry.
- Keep live, unknown, malformed, unavailable and legacy owners fenced.
Compare the whole prior receipt during ownership takeover, under the
existing dedicated advisory lock.
- Persist platform proof and audit automatic takeover. Resume normal
finalization of the same saved result, preserving task ownership,
approved boundaries, monitors and pending confirmations.
- Remove process metadata, shutdown evidence, confirmation checkboxes
and infrastructure-repair forms from task views. Suppress the duplicate
technical owner-recovery card. Show “Restoring saved work…” only from
server-confirmed recovery or queued operator recovery; platform identity
alone shows the operator-assistance fallback. Remove the status when
recovery resolves.
- Share current-task, current-running-execution, accepted-result,
authoritative-reviewer and newer-execution checks between automatic and
operator recovery. Validate after the provider lookup, atomically with
the owner claim, and again before file publication; closed or superseded
tasks cannot start copyback.
- Keep the separately authorized exact-owner API for operator recovery
of legacy receipts, with active-lock, live-controller, stale-result and
newer-execution rejection. Generic dismissal cannot bypass the copyback
fence.
- Replace obsolete form stories with production-backed automatic,
queued, legacy, completed and mobile examples; retain stable suite IDs.
Update the operator runbook and scoped Storybook catalog.

## Verification

- Red/green: new platform-proof tests failed before implementation; the
database takeover regression failed against the original ownership
guard; reduced-UI assertions failed against the original form. All pass
after the changes.
- Passed: 59 physical-owner/finalization database tests using isolated
PostgreSQL, including real reconciler commitment from all three
saved-result phases through both automatic and operator recovery. They
preserve result identity, exact saved file bytes, pending approval and
overdue monitor waits, and create no new run or wake request. Unknown
evidence and changed ownership remain fenced.
- Passed: 162 focused proof, cloud identity, recovery route,
recovery-card and reduced-UI tests.
- Passed: full workspace typecheck and build, final server/UI
typechecks, token gates, and Storybook build.
- Browser inspection: desktop task composition shows only the quiet
status; completed example removes it and retains the approval-wait
message. Mobile shows the existing bottom navigation with no horizontal
overflow. These are fixture UI observations, not live provider
acceptance.
- A companion harness change implements the actual provider check,
signed receipts, server-token authentication and bounded/coalesced
provider reads. Its full typecheck and test suite passed: 3,240 passed,
92 skipped, zero failures. This application alone cannot enable platform
verification.
- The updated full application `pnpm test:run` was stopped after
repeated local embedded-Postgres startup failures; it is not claimed
green. The same affected recovery suites pass against isolated
PostgreSQL. CI passed on final head `9ad5c3529e`: 54 successful checks,
two intentional skips, and successful legacy Snyk status. Greptile is
5/5 with no unresolved findings.
- Global Storybook catalog validation is green: 225 files, 2,224
stories. Its 17 catalog/index tests pass. Master was merged and the
inherited index metadata was reconciled after source review.
- Review correction red/green: two UI and two database assertions
reproduced misleading progress / missing server recovery state; all pass
after server-confirmed state was added. All 153 focused server tests and
68 UI tests pass on the final recovery code, including repeated-sweep
idempotence. Full workspace typecheck/build, token gates and Storybook
build also pass.
- Safety regression red/green: stale-task copyback and publication tests
failed against the previous guard. The final suite covers changes during
proof lookup, closed/cancelled tasks, replaced execution/checkout, newer
and queued legacy runs, reassignment and rejected/unbound results, plus
the real reconciler selecting closed or superseded tasks. Files remain
untouched and no workspace operation starts.
- No staging mutations, deployment, live provider probes or live
production recovery were performed. The three historical receipts lack
deployment identity and still require independent operator proof.

## Risks

Automatic takeover requires the companion harness release and configured
runtime-identity keys. Deploying only this application leaves
unavailable evidence fenced. Legacy receipts are not retrospectively
assigned a deployment identity. An authorized operator can still make an
incorrect attestation through the fallback API; its administrator gate
and exact-owner safeguards remain. Provider history that is missing or
deeper than the bounded lookup defers automatic recovery. Copyback can
still fail under its existing retained-workspace policy.

No migration, telemetry change or cloud provider credential delivery is
required. The companion harness PR also has passing CI and a 5/5 review;
neither branch is deployed.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, browser verification,
tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and
context-window size 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 and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run the relevant 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>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <paperclip@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-13 10:14:45 -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, review date and source commit, 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 both indexes and cross-links together. 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, indexes, 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 product-map coverage.json, which records documentation scope.