DottaandPaperclip
21137db805
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agents and inspect their work. > - Task monitors schedule checks of work that is still pending. > - A task can retain a monitor after it becomes blocked. > - The UI still offered Check now, but the server rejected the task status. > - The UI also claimed that an automatic check would run on the next tick. > - This change admits an explicit human check through the normal execution gates and shows that automatic checks are paused. > - People can request the check without changing task status, and skipped checks no longer report success. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A blocked task with a retained monitor showed Check now and an overdue countdown. Clicking the button failed because manual checks required an in-progress or in-review task. The endpoint also returned success when admission skipped a check. **Expected behavior** A human can request one check through normal admission. Automatic checks stay paused while the task is blocked. A check that cannot start reports a conflict. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Schedule a monitor on an agent-owned task. 2. Let the task become blocked while it retains the schedule. 3. Open the task and click Check now. Related: #14909 addresses scheduled-retry promotion. This PR addresses retained task monitors. **Paperclip version or commit** Base:7f10cc0585. ## What Changed - Allow a human to check a retained monitor on a blocked task. Keep agent and automatic checks limited to active task statuses. - Keep the existing admission path and status guard. Do not change task status to start a check. - Return 409 when admission skips the check. Preserve the schedule when a dependency or recovery hold prevents dispatch. Keep a successful result when a new schedule replaces the consumed schedule after admission. - Show Automatic checks paused in the banner, composer strip and properties. Hide Check now on backlog and todo tasks. Provider-quota recovery stays paused on blocked tasks because it uses a direct retry path; its monitor is retained until the task resumes. - Add database, process, route and UI regression coverage, a Storybook state, API metadata, and behavior documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - Server scheduling, process admission and route suites: 94 tests passed. - UI monitor, properties and time-formatting suites: 142 tests passed. - Additional admission checks passed: an explicit check starts a process on a blocked task; an unresolved dependency prevents dispatch and preserves the monitor. - Token gates, map checks, Storybook catalog checks and 30 map/catalog tests passed. - The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt reported 1 timeout among 1,621 chat integration tests: “keeps an ambiguous github text part blocked across restart and retries only that part and its tail” exceeded 15 seconds. The exact case passed in isolation on the final head (1 passed, 1,620 skipped). The remaining full-run groups were stopped to isolate that failure. This does not establish a full local pass or explain the initial timeout. Final-head CI is green, including the full chat lanes and the successful single server-shard retry. - Browser inspection passed for the blocked-task banner, composer strip and properties row. Clicking Check now set both visible buttons to disabled Checking state. The preview uses isolated fixtures. - CI server shard 7/12 failed one decision-expiry deadline assertion. The entire unchanged decision-expiry suite passed locally on the final head (20/20). The single retry of that shard passed after the first workflow attempt completed. The initial failure remains recorded here. Neither that test nor its production path changed before retry; the cause is not established by a passing retry. - Greptile reviewed final headed936f7433at 5/5. Both prior review threads are resolved. - The first CI chat job stopped after its runner received a shutdown signal. The final head completed a fresh CI run. - The process fixture uses a local no-op adapter. It proves admission and execution, not a live provider's response. The Storybook state simulates dispatch. ## Risks - An explicit human check can start work on a blocked task with no unresolved execution gate. This is intentional. Dependencies, recovery, native finalization, ownership, pause and budgets retain their existing checks. - Skipped manual checks now return 409 instead of 200. The UI already displays API errors in context. - No schema change or migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The session does not expose a more specific served model ID or context-window size. Used repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. ## 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.