DottaandPaperclip
250429942e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - New agents must pass setup and execution checks before they can run. > - The lifecycle worker saved the same retry message for every failure. > - Users could not identify the failed step or correct its configuration. > - The UI also described failed work as work still in progress. > - This pull request names the failed step and gives a safe corrective action. > - Users can identify configuration problems and understand automatic retries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A new hire showed a paused status and “The lifecycle step failed. Retry the operation.” Repeated retries did not explain the failure. A successful retry cleared the original error. This change cannot recover an error that an older server already cleared. **Expected behavior** Name the failed setup step. Give a useful action for known execution test failures. Explain automatic retry. Keep provider output and credentials out of lifecycle errors. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a disposable agent with an unavailable model or invalid execution command. 2. Open its profile while verification fails. 3. Inspect the error, correct the configuration, and select Retry now. 4. Confirm that the failure disappears after the agent becomes ready. Related change: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16155 shows pending setup progress in creation and assignment. This change improves the cause and action shown when setup fails. ## What Changed - Save the failed lifecycle phase and step in the existing lifecycle error field. - Classify authentication, model, command, directory, timeout, and response failures from execution test check codes. - Use fixed error messages. Do not retain raw provider messages, check details, or credentials. - Share the allowed failure codes with the lifecycle log. - Show failed-state labels and automatic retry guidance. Rename Retry to Retry now. - Extend worker, database, and UI regression coverage. Update the agent verification maps. ## Verification - Passed 105 focused tests across lifecycle diagnostics, database lifecycle commands, saved harness verification, and AgentLifecycleStatus. - Passed server TypeScript compilation with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`. - Passed UI typecheck and production build. - Passed module boundary checks, token gates, character sync, map validation, and `git diff --check`. - Used Playwright to inspect the production component with a simulated model failure. Confirmed the failure text, retry guidance, retry callback, and recovered state. Captured a screenshot. This component check does not prove a live provider run. - Attempted `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Both require Rust cargo, which is not installed in the local execution environment. - Started `pnpm test:run` locally. No final local suite result was recorded before handoff. The complete PR CI workflow passed. - Passed all latest-commit CI gates, including typecheck, build, general and serialized tests, Rust checks, and all eight browser test shards: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38726198774 - Greptile scored the latest commit 5/5 with no findings. There are no review threads to resolve. ## Risks - Failure classification depends on existing adapter check codes. Unknown codes use a safe fallback message. - A known code can describe only the checks reported by the adapter. - No database migration is required. The error field remains a string. - Retry schedules, leases, readiness, approvals, and budget controls keep their current behavior. - Full build verification requires a runner with Rust cargo. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used reasoning, code editing, browser checks, and tool execution. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. ## 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 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.
Browse features
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. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
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 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.
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. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
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 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.