Files
PaperClipAI/maps
cf1def0ca6 feat(inbox): rebuild compact cards and share task review controls (#20961)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work.
> - The inbox collects decisions, requests, and updates for the people
in a company.
> - People need a clear personal queue and a consistent way to answer
each request.
> - Repeated headings, inconsistent card actions, and separate review
flows make that work harder.
> - This pull request connects the inbox UI to the routing foundation in
#20959.
> - Compact cards use shared task controls and open supporting work in a
side panel.
> - People can answer, claim, transfer, archive, and inspect outcomes
from one place.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

The inbox cards, personal views, shared task controls, and decision
history.

**Subsystem affected**

UI. This PR targets master and uses the routing foundation merged in
#20959.

**Current behavior**

The inbox repeats headings and counts. Cards have different layouts and
action placement. The requester can repeat the signed-in person's name.
Review and question controls differ between the inbox and task thread.

**Proposed behavior**

Open Assigned to you by default. Show one count line above the cards.
Use a compact card layout with consistent actions and supporting
details. Show the requester's avatar and name only when they differ from
the signed-in person. Share question controls, including a radio option
for Other that reveals a text field when selected.

**Reason and benefit**

People can scan their queue and complete requests without losing the
surrounding task or creating separate drafts for the same review.

**Breaking changes**

The default inbox view becomes personal. The all-assignee and shared
views remain available. Card close menus distinguish personal archive
and snooze from shared withdrawal.

**Additional context**

Refs #20959, #19363, and #19520. Refs #20268 for related
actionable-request work. This stack adds personal routing and shared
controls. ROADMAP.md includes Multiple Human Users and Agent Reviews and
Approvals.

## What Changed

- Add personal, unassigned, company, all-assignee, and archived inbox
views. Add claim, transfer, personal close actions, receipts, and
history controls.
- Use compact decision cards with a single count line, one-pixel
borders, and equal space above, below, and to the right of each primary
action.
- Open artifacts and synchronized confirmation/approval controls in a
shared side panel. Share their revision drafts and action state with the
task thread. Other requests keep one editable form on the inbox card
while reviewing an artifact.
- Make Other match the question options and reveal its field only when
selected. Apply this to inbox and task question cards.
- Hide self-requester labels, space agent avatars, and use the standard
canceled status icon for withdrawn requests.
- Use connector logos in connector cards. Keep the connector promotion
background and sidebar border continuous.
- Add company and project decision-owner controls and document the
updated inbox behavior.

## Verification

- The complete [GitHub Actions CI
matrix](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/43141559641)
passes on `8d81a75e49b518fff6b6ff4c23dd67979b0b97ee` (Linux/Node 24:
typecheck, build, general and serialized tests, Runner support, browser
shards, and aggregate gates). Greptile is 5/5 on that exact head with
zero open findings, and the security scan passes.
- Local UI typechecking passes. Eight focused suites pass 382 tests: 236
inbox/review/question/connector tests plus all 146 composer tests.
Regressions passed red to green for attachment links, prompt rendering,
single-form artifact review, connector scope copy, accessible headings,
and the composer test harness's missing theme provider. The final commit
changes only that test harness; production code is unchanged from
`59d015833f`.
- Browser acceptance on the production implementation confirms preserved
selected answers with one editable question form, accessible Markdown
prompts, inert image references, accurate connector scope copy, native
PDF downloads, image sidebar previews, and Open file requesting the
attachment endpoint while preserving the inbox URL. Request reads and
file responses were intercepted; no question answers were written. The
preview is healthy on the final head.
- Visual and interaction checks cover Other radio behavior in both
themes and on mobile, the loaded Google Calendar logo, and 20px above,
below, and to the right of the primary action across all 23 visible
cards. The affected desktop/mobile navigation and sidebar specs pass
locally and in the final CI browser matrix.
- Real-editor browser checks confirm Ctrl/Cmd+Enter cannot bypass
another person's confirmation. Cancel preserves the draft and unlocks
silently; Continue submits once. Approval write failures remain visible.
- `pnpm verify` returns exit 2 because DESIGN.md requires broader
coverage; the final full CI matrix supplies every requested gate. Maps
and Storybook catalog structural checks pass. The routing foundation
#20959 merged after passing 249 database tests, server typechecking,
full CI, Greptile 5/5, and security scanning. Its backend and SDK
registry are preserved.
- Demo data is retained for testing; database suites and browser specs
use separate disposable databases.

## Risks

- The inbox uses the routing contracts merged in #20959. Personal
filters and history affect shared task entry points; the affected
controls are included in local regression coverage and full CI.
- Personal defaults and close-menu wording change inbox behavior.
Existing resolver permissions still control shared actions.
- Shared revision state and live invalidation affect two surfaces.
Focused tests cover draft synchronization, action locks, and incoming
updates.
- Visual changes use the existing design tokens and component
primitives.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used repository tools, code execution, and
browser checks. This session does not expose a more specific runtime
model ID or its context-window size.

## 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 described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue
template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run focused 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: Scott Tong <scott@scottsmbpm5max.lan>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-11-11 21:05:00 -08:00
..

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.

The chat scenario catalog adds natural-language requests, starting context and expected conversational outcomes for the same capability IDs. It lives with Product E2E as planning data; a scenario reference is neither a registered execution nor evidence that a journey passed.

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 code and its tests; a map cannot grant authority or redefine a permission denial as success.

Capability identifiers

The feature ID is the recipe filename without .md, such as onboarding. The full capability ID joins that feature ID and a Sub-features key with /: the company key in feature-map/onboarding.md is onboarding/company. Its agent-access-map/onboarding.md companion uses the same local company key. The feature-map index lists the existing feature and full capability IDs.

Each child page states Feature ID: `onboarding`. after its introduction or product-map link. In feature recipes, show the full ID beside the parsed local key: - `company`: `onboarding/company` — create a company. In access companions and Storybook verification guidance, keep the existing local heading and put Capability ID: `onboarding/company`. beneath it. These labels make the existing identifiers visible without changing keys, anchors, or ID generation.

Use full capability IDs in cross-feature references, Storybook annotations, tests, issues, PRs, and verification evidence. Both segments use lowercase letters, digits, and hyphens. Keep filenames and keys stable when display titles or navigation labels change; renaming either changes the capability ID.

Entry-point IDs describe a surface, such as web-wizard, and are scoped to their recipe. Reference them with a recipe link, such as onboarding.md#web-wizard, and record the capability exercised separately. Navigation section labels are not capability IDs. See IDs and references for examples.

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, and its feature ID, followed by one H2 backticked local key per product sub-feature. Each capability starts with its full capability ID and 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

Add entries only for substantial new features under the feature-map scope rule. Routine fixes, polish, refactors, performance work, and test changes do not require map updates. Correct or remove existing text only when behavior or access changes make it materially inaccurate; keep the correction local to the affected recipe or companion. 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. Update the corresponding chat scenarios when their request, assumptions or expected outcome changes; use multiple cases for meaningfully different starting conditions rather than treating an API path as conversational coverage.

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. Keep the feature-map README's readable ID index aligned with those sources; it does not register entries for generation. Do not 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.