mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-01 06:42:06 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
1353a232f2
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people direct agents while their work is active. > - Product E2E checks must prove that saved user input reaches the intended work. > - The existing active chat story depends on a file in a local agent workspace. > - That setup cannot qualify an attached deployment with remote agent execution. > - This change adds one shared active follow-up journey through the normal task UI and API. > - Independent native operation, saved input, final reply, and cleanup checks make the result inspectable across targets. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Product E2E coverage for a user follow-up sent while a native agent is working. **Current behavior** The classic chat story holds work open with a local file. The shared deployment-targeted harness has no active follow-up journey. A running heartbeat alone cannot prove that work was active when input arrived. **Proposed behavior** Run one bounded command through the real native provider. Observe its active execution before and after one follow-up is saved. Require one final reply with the late requirement, correct task and agent identity, an empty input queue, and visible readback after reload. Use the same story on managed and attached targets. ## What Changed - Add a shared `followup-while-running` journey with normal task creation and reply submission. - Require a bound native turn and pending shell execution at the input boundary. Retain a closed receipt with source identity and a row hash. - Accept one steered work run or one normal successor (1–2 native runs). Preserve every other journey's declared run contract. - Reuse the saved native final reply observer, run binding checks, usage collection, target lifecycle and private evidence path. - Accept canonical builtin/process execution events independent of provider tool display names; calibrate against real OpenCode, Codex and ACP mappers. Reject Paperclip semantic tool names across native wrappers/prefixes and unnamed or ambiguous builtin calls. - Recognize only the observed legacy PRP v1 builtin/bash/unknown/readOnly=false command shape and fail promptly when owned work finishes before a live boundary can be observed. - Ready the task page/composer before the observed command boundary, use a bounded 90-second command, and preserve active-after-persistence proof. - Add adversarial oracle and retained-result calibration. Register the journey, include its sources in the definition hash, and document its coverage. - Keep six real browser document-readiness checks and verify shared-deadline behavior with a deterministic clock/state test that rejects timeout-reset mutations. ## Verification Exact current head `e72e20ad111bd94728d38606015d1fdac3c92929` passed [full CI run 41142552195](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41142552195): all 49 workflow jobs reached accepted terminal results, including typecheck, build, every test lane and aggregate verify. All 59 reported checks are terminal: 55 success, three expected skips and one neutral 5/5 Paperclip review. Snyk passed. [Fresh Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/18345#issuecomment-6528913235) explicitly names this exact head and gives 5/5. No review threads remain open. The PR is mergeable. These source gates do not establish a live QA pass at this head. Fresh protected QA at this exact source and the separately recorded deployed application/runtime remains required before primary merge and daily admission. Historical live QA staging **PASS** on qualified commit `af9e091b15b5e24b6b2cc1b424523430cc2ab024`: 6/6 checks, all five phases including cleanup, two native work runs, and the configured model/environment check passed. The [sanitized qualification report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41122620146-1/) records that exact measurement. Final integration head `e72e20ad111bd94728d38606015d1fdac3c92929` merges exact actual squash `18b1637b6371a6a6adade857e2a73654ee626fef` from [#18254](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/18254) into previous head `e54d64743964b1a19d165537bebbe62c50389a23`. The merge had no conflicts. All 18 files in this PR's change set, the complete 45-file shared journey directory, and six shared native/evidence helpers retain their exact previous-head Git blobs: 59 scoped files in total. The production clarification helper remains blob `800a747284db19b8484650b6759e8bd1f356839d`. Follow-up 1–2 runs, question 1–3 runs, older exact counts, owned native event checks, active-before/after persistence proof, cleanup/accounting and feature mappings remain unchanged. Source integration head `e55d74491f5bcd99c1455e9ace02bd7ad7319fae` integrates exact actual squash `8595efc20bda3ce20a9fbbf34a5d156a6fcf6d57` from [#18385](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/18385). The merge had no conflicts. All 17 files in this PR's change set and six shared native/evidence helpers retain their exact Git blobs from previous head `162e341cda5b627639b486b4019a1675bb018ea2`. This preserves the follow-up and question readiness checks, feature mappings, six closed follow-up check IDs, immutable before/after active-operation proof, follow-up 1–2 runs, question 1–3 runs and older exact counts. Previously reviewed head `e54d64743964b1a19d165537bebbe62c50389a23` adds a separate test-only reliability repair on top of that source integration. It replaces one scheduler-sensitive browser case with a deterministic Vitest clock and locator-state model that calls the actual production helper. The six other real Chromium checks remain byte-for-byte unchanged and pass **6/6**. Focused unit suites pass **51/51**, including the deterministic deadline case. This is six browser checks plus focused unit coverage, not seven browser checks. The model makes the panel ready at 100 ms, the supplied answer ready at 600 ms, and full valid content ready at 1,300 ms. It requires rejection at the shared 1,000 ms deadline and records immutable rejection state before simulating a 10-second scheduler stall. Both restarted-timeout mutations fail: resetting all waits wrongly resolves at 1,300 ms; resetting matcher timeouts while keeping the final real deadline guard rejects only at 1,300 ms with valid content present. The genuine helper rejects at 1,000 ms with the answer still incomplete. The production helper is unchanged, Git blob `800a747284db19b8484650b6759e8bd1f356839d`. That two-file test-only patch changed no journey, application, run, accounting, model or runtime behavior. Its six-browser/51-unit results are prior-head evidence; the complete patch is unchanged in the new integration. The final source also retains the actual merged question-primary squash `d9354bbfc35ef74333e90e596ce21dc8e59149b9` from [#18346](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/18346). Later commits `409117451da260a03fc28a3107c7808ecbe68f8f` and `ea3e7b1d1bed562351fcf4722c7175001b987b59` bound question document readiness to one campaign deadline and test that waits cannot restart it. Commit `162e341cda5b627639b486b4019a1675bb018ea2` adds question/follow-up report feature mappings and coverage. These files are unchanged by the final merge. The imported upstream source has real application changes: [#18334](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/18334) makes managed skill content durable and extends native skill-test contracts; [#18350](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/18350) requires managed Cloud shared storage and bootstrap prerequisites. #18385 updates TestOps job metadata and repairs their combined maintenance fixture. The new merge additionally imports [#18383](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/18383) at `81ecaf0654fe79a2a2dbda6588f033e39ee610e4`, which bounds failed lifecycle verification; [#18357](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/18357) at `45a3a92e6dc52d20923b9aa34a22fee2ec5443f9`, which persists sandbox-creation ownership and updates cleanup/adapter/plugin contracts; and #18254 at `18b1637b6371a6a6adade857e2a73654ee626fef`, which accepts a valid late Antigravity authorization URL while native authentication drains. This PR's diff against exact upstream `18b1637b6371a6a6adade857e2a73654ee626fef` contains only journey tests, report coverage and documentation. Harness source and deployed application/runtime identity are separate inputs. This source integration does not deploy the imported application changes or claim the QA target runs this application revision. This final SHA has not been measured by the historical run above: **fresh QA at this exact final head is required before primary merge**, followed by normal TestOps verification/admission. Fresh exact-head CI and review have passed as recorded above. The live measurement must record the actual separately deployed QA application/runtime identity. Seven whole-file blobs remain identical to the qualified SHA. All paths are relative to `tests/runner-e2e/`: | Journey/helper | Unchanged Git blob | | --- | --- | | `product-journeys/active-followup-evidence.ts` | `83a5d9fab52abb9849a40e83eca6b6a9c29bf587` | | `product-journeys/active-followup.test.ts` | `728160c610c18292d2cf06d4a87d25a8719f1734` | | `native-task-reply.ts` | `59d11f1a178dad9db3da8fa2342ff93643cb9922` | | `native-event-envelope.ts` | `305b0b456c59c511ee328e529ad574c0583075a0` | | `run-observations.ts` | `08c8ad184a821a7cd536926b3d7e3d1156a1e3da` | | `user-actions.ts` | `e9611348dc41e17899367dab2e3b36d3d1be9480` | | `stop-redirect-flow.ts` | `4580bd605a425bc72511e02d988492acbec8d60e` | The follow-up preservation comparison against historical `af9` has three explicit exceptions; no whole-file identity is claimed for them. The separately documented question readiness and report additions above also require final-source verification: 1. `product-journeys/agent-flows.ts` adds `question-answer-resume` to the `AgentJourney` type exclusion, alongside follow-up. Its remaining contents and runtime helper bodies are byte-for-byte unchanged. Qualified blob `a0afaa968c1d854476159fef21de7b6dd50a4a98`; final blob `0cc797c0ae594e7769338e63a80c4f67e29e4a54`. 2. The common run-count helper is centralized in `success-contract.ts` and re-exported by the catalog. It accepts follow-up **1–2**, clarification **1–3**, and each older paid journey's exact count. The follow-up catalog entry, maximum of two runs, six required checks, native dispatch, collection and retained-run contract remain byte-for-byte unchanged. The helper's text differs; its preserved count semantics are verified explicitly. 3. `product-journeys/active-followup-flow.ts` changes exactly one composer readiness assertion from Playwright's implicit five-second default to an explicit 30-second timeout, matching `submitTaskReply` for attached targets. Prompts, actions, native evidence, before/after persistence proof and grading otherwise compare byte-for-byte unchanged. Qualified blob `64392329198a1a4d9828e32834d4507e175216e6`; final blob `2746b5ba89e2af26b4097ba7897913186786ac5d`. This correction is why a fresh final-head QA run is required. - **310 focused tests passed at current final head `e72e20ad111bd94728d38606015d1fdac3c92929`**: 286 journey/evidence/catalog/report/shared-deadline tests in 14 files and 24 native authentication/real-child stream-order tests in two files. Both invocations used Node24 and one Vitest worker. The earlier `e55` integration also passed 365 focused tests, including 40 Cloud configuration and 40 TestOps metadata cases; those results remain prior-source evidence. - **157 explicit count assertions passed again at the current final head**, including both interactive ranges, older exact counts, invalid/fractional/non-number values and catalog/contract export identity. The maximum bounds and six closed follow-up check IDs also matched. - Maps and diff checks passed. The official QA runtime-import preflight passed on Node24 at the current final head without network access. It uses a dummy adapter and no credentials. It does not prove target connectivity, sign-in, model readiness or deployed application/runtime identity. Those require the normal protected QA run. No model/provider work or optional Runner release was dispatched. - Current local runtime dependencies use ignored isolated workspace-source views. No shared dependencies or compilers were changed. A previous local typecheck attempt hit stale reused Runner declarations. No full repository typecheck, test run or build was repeated locally; the successful exact-head full CI run above now supplies these gates. - CI on previous head `162e341cda5b627639b486b4019a1675bb018ea2` failed the Cloud/local maintenance fixture in [server shard 9](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41133716802/job/124331643100), plus dependent verify. The actual tested merge combined that head with master `198218bf554877fe3b7a83742eefb3b8f12392c6`. A Cloud child selected local-disk storage and hit the new shared-storage policy. This was a deterministic upstream fixture mismatch; no unchanged failed-job retry was used. - The actual #18385 repair configures a valid Cloud child, verifies local bytes independently, checks the expected provider mismatch and retains exact stored-config readback. Its own final head `b76d5dd40d7711f1b5f6b6316b1114c0aae02d57` passed 59 checks, including [server shard 9](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41133876636/job/124331450635). That prior result supports the repair; it does not replace this final head's fresh CI. Separate repair candidate #18392 and its source/evidence are retained as superseded history. - A local attempt to run the database fixture could not start PostgreSQL because the host exhausted macOS semaphores. A first setup attempt also failed package resolution before test execution. Skipped database cases and these setup failures are not passes. No kernel settings, shared processes or databases were changed. - The complete previous-head CI run [41138618869](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41138618869) finished with one underlying failure: [Runner Vitest shard 1](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41138618869/job/124347859445) expected native Antigravity login success but observed failure at `antigravity-auth.test.ts:101`. The lane had one failed test, 1,994 passing tests and eight skipped tests. Aggregate verify failed only because of this lane. All other 57 checks were accepted, including build, typecheck, all server/browser suites, Runner shard 2, Snyk and exact-head 5/5 reviews. No unchanged retry was requested. - The independently reviewed #18254 repair removes an invalid cross-pipe ordering assumption: a valid URL on stderr can arrive after the authenticate response on stdout during drain. Its real-child regression forces both orders. The current final source imports that actual squash; the 24 focused authentication cases pass here. Fresh full CI and exact-head review have now passed for this source, as recorded above. The earlier failed result is not relabeled. - The original live compatibility failure is retained: an older PRP v1 pack labeled builtin `bash` as operation `unknown`, causing the observer to miss the command and never send the follow-up. Its exact shape was reproduced red before repair. Generic unknown operations, semantic tools, wrappers, read-only work and foreign provenance remain rejected. The historical qualified pass used the repaired oracle; no failed result was relabeled. - Earlier CI on `6fad965d69` hit an unchanged heartbeat test's three-second adapter-call wait; its original failure and one narrow rerun remain recorded. The qualified SHA subsequently passed CI. An earlier report-catalog subprocess failure is retained. The final focused Node24 run now includes that suite and passes after the documented report feature mappings. ## Risks The fixture asks the native agent to run one bounded `sleep 90` command. The observer must see actual active native execution; a fast or noncompliant turn fails rather than passing from elapsed time. A completed result requires one or two bounded native work runs, source attribution, configured model/environment, and collection. Unknown provider prices stay unknown. This change does not alter production execution or grant new access. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and code execution. The host does not expose an exact underlying model version or 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 available 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; existing follow-up execution fixes do not provide this deployment-targeted test - [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the enhancement template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the new focused tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [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 merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Paperclip feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.
The chat scenario catalog describes how people might request these capabilities in conversation, including setup and permission branches. These are planned Product E2E journeys, not live coverage results.
IDs and references
Use the existing IDs in issues, PRs, Storybook annotations, tests, and verification evidence:
| Reference | Example | Defined by |
|---|---|---|
| Feature ID | onboarding |
The recipe filename without .md. |
| Capability ID | onboarding/company |
The feature ID plus a key from its Sub-features list, separated by /. |
| Entry-point reference | onboarding.md#web-wizard | The recipe filename plus its entry-point heading. The local entry-point ID is web-wizard. |
For example, report verifying onboarding/company through web-wizard.
Capabilities describe behavior; entry points identify the surface used to exercise
it. Entry-point IDs are separate from generated capability IDs. Both maps and
Storybook use the same full capability IDs. Each child page states its feature
ID; recipe bullets show the full capability ID beside the local key, and access
companions show it beneath the local heading. Local keys remain unchanged for
parsing and existing anchors.
Keep recipe filenames, sub-feature keys, and entry-point keys stable when changing display titles or navigation. Renaming a filename or key changes its references. The section headings below are navigation labels, not additional IDs.
Browse features
Use this index to open a recipe or copy its feature and full capability IDs.
Getting started and access
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
onboarding |
Onboarding and first work | onboarding/instance, onboarding/company, onboarding/adapter, onboarding/first-task, onboarding/resume |
access |
Login, invitations, and access | access/login, access/invitations, access/membership, access/resources, access/cli-auth |
companies |
Companies and portability | companies/selection, companies/identity, companies/decision-models, companies/prompt-injection-prevention, companies/fast-responses, companies/agent-observability, companies/archive, companies/portability |
Tasks and conversations
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
tasks |
Task creation and lifecycle | tasks/create, tasks/organize, tasks/properties, tasks/discussion, tasks/completion, tasks/privacy |
task-coordination |
Delegation, dependencies, and signoff | task-coordination/delegation, task-coordination/dependencies, task-coordination/signoff, task-coordination/tree-control |
inbox-search |
Inbox, decisions, and search | inbox-search/views, inbox-search/triage, inbox-search/decisions, inbox-search/search, inbox-search/toasts |
agent-chat |
Agent conversations and project handoff | agent-chat/discovery, agent-chat/history, agent-chat/handoff, agent-chat/conference-room |
questions-and-approvals |
Questions and approvals | questions-and-approvals/questions, questions-and-approvals/dismiss-and-reopen, questions-and-approvals/confirmations, questions-and-approvals/plan-review, questions-and-approvals/audience, questions-and-approvals/governance, questions-and-approvals/tool-review, questions-and-approvals/continuation |
steering |
Steering and queued messages | steering/queue, steering/edit-order-discard, steering/steer, steering/interrupt, steering/stop-and-pause, steering/drafts, steering/approval-queue |
documents-artifacts |
Documents, attachments, and work products | documents-artifacts/documents, documents-artifacts/annotations, documents-artifacts/attachments, documents-artifacts/work-products, documents-artifacts/library |
Agents and reusable capabilities
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
agents |
Hiring, configuration, and organization | agents/hire, agents/grok-bot, agents/instructions, agents/organization, agents/primary-agent, agents/lifecycle, agents/built-in, agents/api-keys, agents/managed-agent-setup |
runs-adapters |
Runs, harnesses, and model accounts | runs-adapters/availability, runs-adapters/validation, runs-adapters/runs, runs-adapters/session |
skills |
Skills and Skill Studio | skills/discovery, skills/authoring, skills/versions, skills/policy, skills/testing |
teams |
Team packages and installation | teams/discovery, teams/preview, teams/install, teams/configuration |
Projects and execution
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
projects |
Projects and repositories | projects/lifecycle, projects/task-context, projects/repositories, projects/defaults, projects/privacy |
goals |
Goals and work alignment | goals/hierarchy, goals/alignment, goals/navigation |
workspaces |
Workspaces, services, and files | workspaces/binding, workspaces/provisioning, workspaces/services, workspaces/files-git, workspaces/closure |
execution-environments |
Execution environments | execution-environments/configuration, execution-environments/capabilities, execution-environments/probe, execution-environments/assignment, execution-environments/images |
recovery |
Recovery | recovery/diagnosis, recovery/bounded-continuation, recovery/source-action, recovery/exhaustion, recovery/workspace, recovery/unknown-outcome, recovery/user-continuation, recovery/reconnect |
Apps, channels, and extensions
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
connection-setup |
Connection setup | connection-setup/catalog, connection-setup/identity-and-access, connection-setup/credentials, connection-setup/handoff, connection-setup/draft-recovery, connection-setup/task-request, connection-setup/channel-setup, connection-setup/failure |
assistant-connections |
Assistant connections (MCP) | assistant-connections/setup, assistant-connections/consent, assistant-connections/device-login, assistant-connections/client-use, assistant-connections/revocation |
app-permissions |
App access and action permissions | app-permissions/agent-access, app-permissions/action-policy, app-permissions/catalog-change, app-permissions/test-action, app-permissions/account-maintenance |
chat-channels |
External chat and email | chat-channels/providers, chat-channels/identity, chat-channels/conversation, chat-channels/attachments, chat-channels/lifecycle, chat-channels/outbound-email |
gateways-profiles |
Tool gateways and access profiles | gateways-profiles/gateway, gateways-profiles/profiles, gateways-profiles/client-connect, gateways-profiles/tokens, gateways-profiles/activity |
secrets |
Secrets and proposals | secrets/company-secrets, secrets/user-secrets, secrets/proposals, secrets/vault-import, secrets/runtime-delivery |
plugins |
Plugins | plugins/installation, plugins/configuration, plugins/contributions, plugins/lifecycle |
Automation and structured work
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
routines |
Routines, schedules, and triggers | routines/definition, routines/triggers, routines/run-now, routines/history, routines/management |
cases |
Cases | cases/browse, cases/structure, cases/history, cases/task-links, cases/handoffs |
status-cards |
Status cards | status-cards/authoring, status-cards/generation, status-cards/inspection, status-cards/archive |
Oversight and operation
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
budgets-costs |
Costs and budgets | budgets-costs/cost-reporting, budgets-costs/budgets, budgets-costs/incidents, budgets-costs/resolution, budgets-costs/subscriptions, budgets-costs/accounting-recovery |
activity |
Dashboards and audit trails | activity/overview, activity/activity, activity/runs, activity/routine-audit, activity/timeline, activity/agent-commentary |
navigation-preferences |
Navigation, profile, and announcements | navigation-preferences/navigation, navigation-preferences/preferences, navigation-preferences/profile, navigation-preferences/announcements, navigation-preferences/fallbacks, navigation-preferences/command-palette |
instance-operations |
Instance operations | instance-operations/install-update, instance-operations/server-service, instance-operations/configuration, instance-operations/diagnostics, instance-operations/backup, instance-operations/runtime-setup |
cli-operations |
CLI/API and local worktrees | cli-operations/context, cli-operations/domain-commands, cli-operations/outputs, cli-operations/run-controls, cli-operations/worktree-instances, cli-operations/feedback-export |
Contributor surfaces
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
developer-labs |
Developer previews and diagnostic labs | developer-labs/design, developer-labs/interaction-labs, developer-labs/performance, developer-labs/route-gates |
Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.
Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in
maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the
Storybook guide. Recipes are discovered automatically from their navigation
metadata; generation does not depend on this high-level index.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing
prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature ID, full capability IDs and
entry-point ID (for example, onboarding/company through web-wizard), plus the
recipe link, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result,
command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the
action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant,
without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page
modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module
is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested.
Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations
describe documentation scope, not runtime health.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health. Product E2E reports reuse these capability IDs through the journey associations. Their coverage view shows which scenarios in a campaign are linked to each capability and the associated test results. An association or passing scenario does not certify the whole capability; unselected and unmapped journeys remain distinct.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with
the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior
and that local references still exist. Keep the same-named agent access companion
and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only
access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run
node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks;
follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.
Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:
---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---
The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. Discovery uses the recipe and companion; keep the readable ID index above aligned when features or capability IDs change.
Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas
section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and
has Scope (ui, cli, or browser),
Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions
and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API.
The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.
After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked local keys, full capability IDs, and observable behavior/states,
such as
- `company`: `onboarding/company` — create a company. - How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
New or updated entries follow
Poteto's feature-map examples.
Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when
their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by
Omnigent's feature map.
Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.