DottaandPaperclip
b31ec0a2dc
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Routines create tasks that people need to inspect and manage. > - The routines list sends its View all runs link to Audit. > - Tasks already supports routine origin filters in its API, but the page has no control for them. > - This pull request adds a Routine tasks checkbox and links to that selection. > - People can inspect routine work in the normal task list, search, and board views. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The routines list link and the Tasks filters. **Current behavior** View all runs opens Audit. People cannot select routine-created tasks in the Tasks filter menu. **Proposed behavior** View all tasks opens `/issues?view=all&originKind=routine_execution`. Routine tasks is selected. People can toggle or clear it from Tasks. **Reason and benefit** People can use normal task controls to inspect work created by routines. The filter includes manually started routine runs. It excludes manual tasks and other automatic work. **Breaking changes** The routines list link changes its label and destination. No API, schema, authorization, or routine execution contract changes. ## What Changed - Add Routine tasks under Visibility in the current, streamlined, and legacy Tasks filters. Keep Live runs only in the same group and use Show agent-created tasks with proper capitalization where that control is available. - Keep the selection in the URL through reload, search, task navigation, and checkbox changes. - Apply the existing API origin filter before pagination. Include routine tasks even when other automatic tasks are hidden. - Keep source filtering in the shared task filter module and collection owners. Reuse the existing company-scoped issue-list contract. Hide the live-run control in the design sandbox, which does not load live-run IDs. - Update regression coverage, product docs, feature/access maps, and the toolbar preview. ## Verification - All 58 final-head checks are complete with no failures for `f46c2e409b20fa372d166f4721601a0471894fb0`, including successful `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` gates. Greptile and Paperclip Review rate this commit 5/5 with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41078093110). - Local checks pass: full repo typecheck/build for the feature, UI typecheck/build after the final refinements, token gates, feature-map checks, and Storybook catalog generation. - Regression coverage exercises both real list implementations, filter grouping and selection, search and all board columns, URL/pagination state, and mixed pending-decision batches. The Visibility update passed all 89 relevant tests across separate runs. The final sandbox correction passes all 10 filter-menu tests, including three cases that reproduced the bug before the fix. The earlier broad UI run passed 10,043 tests across 845 files. - Browser proof used the actual local app with disposable PostgreSQL data: three tasks created through the routine-run API and one manual task. Followed View all tasks; verified the selected Routine tasks checkbox under Visibility, toggling, reload, search, and board view. Checked current, streamlined, and legacy filter presentations. Screenshots show the link, routine-only results, and requested capitalization/grouping. - Failure accounting: the initial broad UI run found two preference expectations that needed the new false default; those were corrected before the full UI pass. Scrolling tests hit five-second timeouts in combined runs and passed in isolated reruns without timeout changes. A duplicate full local UI run was stopped after the earlier final-commit CI UI lanes passed, with no failures reported in that stopped run. - Full local `pnpm test:run` could not complete because native PostgreSQL initialization exhausted the host semaphore pool. A direct initdb probe confirmed `could not create semaphores: No space left on device`. Browser verification used a disposable container; no host settings or other workspace processes were changed. - Review found that the newly exposed live-run control could empty the design sandbox, which has no live-run IDs. The sandbox now disables that unsupported control; its regression test failed before the fix and passes after it. ## Risks - Low risk. The change uses the existing routine origin and read permissions. A routine task remains automatic work, including when a person starts it manually. - The routine checkbox is exposed only on the Tasks collection. Other filter consumers retain their controls and normalize the new field to false. - Routine histories and Audit run links inside routine details keep their current behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6, through Codex, assisted with implementation and verification. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Capabilities used: repository editing, command execution, tests, and browser interaction. ## 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>
Paperclip agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
The chat scenario catalog uses these same IDs for human requests and expected outcomes. Its scenarios retain the access boundaries here; neither a CEO role nor a planned scenario grants board authority or establishes a working production tool binding.
Use full capability IDs when referring to access contracts outside their file:
onboarding/company means the company capability in onboarding.md in both maps.
The feature index lists feature and
capability IDs; IDs and references
explains entry-point references and stable naming.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api is enabled by default, but explicit server,
company-allowlist and binding settings can narrow admission. It requires a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Connection-management reads support Standard, Ask and Plan; mutations require
Standard. Skill-test runs and nonstandard task-bridge keys cannot administer
connections. These gates supplement each operation's grants, resolved resource
and target scope, and responsible-user authority. See the
rollout policy
and connection authorization.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.