0b0e53029f
## 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>
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.
Features
The map is organized by user capability, not by source file. It covers 35 feature families across the product, CLI, and operator workflows, checked against source on 2026-10-12. Experimental and developer-only surfaces are labeled explicitly. Each recipe includes sub-features, current entry points, automated evidence, manual verification steps, and gotchas.
Getting started and access
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Onboarding and first work | Instance setup, company wizard, first agent and task. |
| Login, invitations, and access | Sessions, bootstrap, membership, roles, and CLI authorization. |
| Companies and portability | Company switching/settings, archival, package import/export. |
Tasks and conversations
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Task creation and lifecycle | Creation, assignment, lists, properties, comments, and completion. |
| Delegation, dependencies, and signoff | Child work, prerequisites, reviewers, and task-tree controls. |
| Inbox, decisions, and search | Personal triage, decision queues, unread/blocked views, search, and personal task toasts. |
| Agent conversations and project handoff | Persistent conversations, discovery, handoff, and gated board chat. |
| Questions and approvals | Question/plan responses, formal approvals, and app-tool review. |
| Steering and queued messages | Follow-ups, queue edits, interruption, and pause/resume. |
| Documents, attachments, and work products | Versioned documents, annotations, files, outputs, and artifact library. |
Agents and reusable capabilities
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Hiring, configuration, and organization | Agent identity, instructions, reporting lines, lifecycle, and built-ins. |
| Runs, harnesses, and model accounts | Adapter/model setup, account validation, transcripts, and run history. |
| Skills and Skill Studio | Discovery, sources, authoring, revisions, tests, and agent policies. |
| Team packages and installation | Catalog preview/install via CLI/API; catalog UI availability called out. |
Projects and execution
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Projects and repositories | Project lifecycle, task context, repository configuration, and defaults. |
| Goals and work alignment | Goal hierarchy, ownership, status, and project/task context. |
| Workspaces, services, and files | Provisioning, task bindings, services/logs, Git/files, and closure. |
| Execution environments | Local, SSH, sandbox providers, target probes, and custom images. |
| Recovery | Stopped work, workspace repair, bounded continuation, and reconnect. |
Apps, channels, and extensions
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Connection setup | Catalog, MCP links, task requests, authentication, and setup resumption. |
| App access and action permissions | Agent grants, off/ask/allowed actions, discovery, tests, and revocation. |
| External chat and email | Provider-specific identity, threads, files, delivery, and endpoint upkeep. |
| Tool gateways and access profiles | Tool exposure, client configuration, tokens, profiles, and activity. |
| Secrets and proposals | Company/user credentials, grants, proposals, and vault import. |
| Plugins | Installation/configuration, contributed pages/tools, and lifecycle. |
Automation and structured work
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Routines, schedules, and triggers | Definitions, variables, scheduled/webhook/manual runs, and history. |
| Pipelines, review queues, and learnings | Experimental stages, automation, items, review, and learning records. |
| Cases | Experimental structured fields, relationships, revisions, and task links. |
| Status cards | Experimental summaries, watched work, refresh history, and settings. |
Oversight and operation
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Costs and budgets | Spend reports, scoped limits, incidents, hard stops, and resumption. |
| Dashboards and audit trails | Company health, live work, activity, runs, routines, and timeline. |
| Navigation, profile, and announcements | Sidebar state, favorites/recents, personal identity, and dismissals. |
| Instance operations | Installation, updates, service health, configuration, and backups. |
| CLI/API and local worktrees | Explicit context, resource commands, outputs, runs, and isolated instances. |
Contributor surfaces
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Developer previews and diagnostic labs | Design examples, interaction fixtures, performance checks; not production acceptance. |
These are verification instructions, not a claim that every journey passed a live test. A component test proves its component; a scripted provider proves that fixture integration. Record executed results separately from the map.
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 filename and entry-point ID, 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 UI coverage inventory accounts for every non-test TSX
module under ui/src/pages, including supporting panels, legacy variants, and
labs. Every product area now links to concrete recipes. Partial means the
area still has the named variant or workflow gaps; unmapped is reserved for
an area with no recipe. These statuses describe documentation, not runtime health.
The page inventory is a source snapshot dated 2026-10-05. The map also includes entry points hosted inside other modules (pipeline Review Queue and Learnings, task documents, onboarding), CLI-only operations, and operator work. The team recipe explicitly distinguishes the current CLI/API path from catalog UI components without a current top-level route. Refer to route registration and the CLI registry when changing reachability.
Remaining depth includes complete provider/auth/attachment matrices, every harness/model/environment capability combination, third-party plugin features, and every role/error/mobile/legacy-shell permutation. The recipes name relevant gaps instead of equating source presence with a working user journey. The index can include capabilities that do not add a page file.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically;
coverage.json records documentation scope rather than live test health.
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. Refresh the inventory snapshot when it
helps explain the current product. 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 an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- 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.