Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 252d9b5077 docs(storybook): record verification routes for missing examples (#16167)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The feature map describes product capabilities and verification
journeys.
> - The Storybook catalog links existing examples to those capabilities.
> - A capability without a story can need UI examples, CLI checks, or
browser checks.
> - This pull request records the required verification surface for all
60 current gaps.
> - The next Storybook pass can add useful examples without claiming
backend proof from mocks.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #16154. Reconciles the new task-notification capability from
#16153.

The related PR search found no duplicate of this classification pass.
This change follows the merged association corrections. It does not add
product behavior or duplicate a roadmap feature.

## What Changed

- Add `maps/storybook-map/VERIFICATION.md` with all 60 unassociated
capabilities: 49 UI example gaps, eight CLI/operator operations, and
three browser verification boundaries.
- Record required UI states, separate production checks, source links,
and existing test starting points. Keep execution marked not run.
- Link the record from the catalog contract. Tell the maintenance skill
to keep its rows, counts, and source revision current.
- Regenerate the feature index for personal task notifications. Refresh
only the inspected recipe/index-dependent review fingerprints. Retain
all 223 suites, 2,212 authored IDs, associations, and classifications.
- Record the targeted association revisit. It found no additional
justified links.

## Verification

- `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`
passed.
- All 27 catalog, feature-index, and map structural tests passed.
- The maintenance skill validator passed.
- A source check confirmed that the 60 unique rows match all non-guide
association gaps. All report, contract, and skill file links exist.
- `git diff --check` passed.
- Inspect the eight CLI/operator rows and three browser rows. UI/API
capabilities retain both obligations.
- Full repository typecheck, tests, build, Storybook build, and live
product journeys were not run locally for this documentation and
generated-data change. No live proof is claimed.

- Final head `a9ef9e8ebc1f41bb7047142704655d08b3e47be7`: all 57
checks/statuses are green (55 successful, two Storybook jobs skipped).
Greptile approved this head at 5/5. The review finding is resolved and
the PR is mergeable.

## Risks

- This source inventory can become stale as capabilities or associations
change. The maintenance skill requires refreshing its rows and source
revision.
- Existing test links identify starting points. They do not certify
complete or passing production coverage.
- There is no migration, permission change, product behavior change,
story removal, or new visual baseline.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex with GPT-6 assisted with source review, documentation, and
checks. It used shell tools and read-only area agents. The runtime did
not expose an exact backend model revision 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 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>
2026-10-13 12:39:04 -05:00
..

Paperclip maps

The maps describe the same capabilities from two perspectives:

  • Feature map: what a person can do, where to reach it, and how to verify the user journey. Preserve its Poteto format.
  • Agent access map: the APIs and agent entry points for those capabilities, their permission boundaries, and access verification.

These are sibling directories under maps/. Each feature file has a same-named agent access companion. Reuse the product map's sub-feature IDs, so tasks/create identifies the same capability in both maps. Product behavior remains governed by the implementation spec; a map cannot grant authority or redefine a permission denial as success.

Access contract

Every business operation needs both an API and a usable agent entry point for an actor authorized to perform it. A dedicated tool is optional when REST, the CLI, an assigned MCP client, or native search_api / call_api already provides the operation. Record which agent surfaces actually have that path; an installed CLI or optional MCP package cannot be assumed available to every native/remote run.

Track these independently:

Dimension Values and meaning
API present, missing, not-applicable, or unreviewed. Use exact methods/paths; distinguish protocols from REST.
Agent access available, partial, missing, restricted, operator-only, not-applicable, or unreviewed. Name the supported surface and actual entry point.
Policy Actor, action/grant, company/resource/ownership scope, responsible-user intersection, run requirements, work modes, and gates relevant to the operation.
Evidence source-only, verified, failed, blocked, or not-run. Source presence and successful board calls are not agent verification.
Review depth baseline records representative operations and known gaps; operation-reviewed enumerates the capability's meaningful operations and their individual access contracts.

Broad capabilities such as task properties must be split into operations before they count as operation-reviewed: renaming, metadata edits, assignment, dependencies, and lifecycle changes can use different tools and permission rules. An available read path cannot certify a write path. List/get/create/update/delete, execution/control, credential handling, and resolution are separate where their authority or transport differs. Do not duplicate request schemas from OpenAPI.

Exceptions and restrictions

Presentation-only state, static developer fixtures, and pre-start/local operator work may use not-applicable for a domain API, with a concrete reason and the existing local path. When a capability combines shared data with presentation, split the operations: browser recents do not exempt resource lookup from API coverage. Promoting local state to a shared feature requires revisiting the entry.

A board-only endpoint is restricted for agent identity, not an automatic exception or a missing API. Cite the enforced policy and record whether the agent can request the authorized human's action and observe its result. An unresolved delegation question remains in Gaps. Company access, a job title, a personal assistant's OAuth grant, or an accepted interaction does not grant board identity. Keep budget, approval, secret and execution authority intact.

Check actual route/service authorization and production tool admission. OpenAPI actor labels and scenario/evaluation tool declarations are supporting metadata; record disagreements rather than using them as proof of access. Native API fallback restrictions, tool field/scope limits, and rollout settings are part of the agent path, even when a legacy agent can call the REST endpoint directly.

Companion file format

Each agent-access-map/<area>.md has an H1, a relative link to its product file, review date and source commit, followed by one H2 backticked ID per product sub-feature. Each capability contains these fields:

  • Review: baseline or operation-reviewed.
  • API: presence state and exact operation IDs, or a reasoned exception.
  • Agent access: availability state and concrete entry points by surface.
  • Policy: relevant permission and runtime boundaries, with source references.
  • Evidence: evidence state, reviewed commit and sources or executed proof.
  • Verification: allowed/denied assertions and observable result; record what has actually run separately from the proposed recipe.
  • Gaps: missing APIs/paths, discovery drift, unreviewed operations or policy decisions; use none only for the enumerated scope that was reviewed.

For an operation-reviewed capability, use H3 backticked operation IDs and repeat API, Agent access, Policy, Evidence, Verification and Gaps for each operation. Use small operation names such as create, update, read, or run-now. The enclosing capability has Review: operation-reviewed only after its meaningful operations have been enumerated. The following excerpt shows one operation; include the others before using that review label:

## `definition`

Review: `operation-reviewed`.

### `create`

API: `present` — POST /api/companies/{companyId}/routines.
Agent access: `available` — agent REST, CLI routine create and native call_api
under the enabled rollout and active-run/mode gates.
Policy: same company; assigneeAgentId must be the calling agent; cite the
routine authorization and native API policy sources.
Evidence: `source-only` — reviewed commit and source links; no live proof.
Verification: `not-run` — create an owned routine; reject assignment to another
agent; inspect saved configuration, attribution and retry behavior.
Gaps: verify ownership and responsible-user resolution with a permitted agent
context; source presence alone does not qualify this operation.

Keeping the maps synchronized

When a change adds/removes a capability or changes its behavior, API, permission, tool binding, CLI support, or work mode, update the affected companion and product recipe as appropriate in the same change. Preserve IDs across renames where the capability is unchanged; update both indexes and cross-links together. An API-only change may update the companion without rewriting unchanged user instructions.

maintain-verification-skill owns reconciliation of both maps. It follows changed source and authorization, checks real agent reachability, and records product gaps without implementing them during a maintenance pass. The creation skill uses this structure. verify-paperclip consumes the relevant recipes and reports evidence/drift; map editing belongs to maintenance.

Run the structural check after map changes:

node scripts/check-maps.mjs

It checks paired areas/IDs, indexes, required fields, and local references. It does not certify endpoint authorization, production bindings, operation completeness, or live behavior. Source audits must check those against the existing API and tool contracts; avoid a second schema catalog or runtime.

For live access proof, use Paperclip's existing API/runner/MCP fixtures or an owned isolated instance. Use the actual agent identity, target and work mode. Assert the allowed result and relevant denial (another company/private resource, wrong owner, missing grant, invalid run, restricted mode or resolver). Mutations also need persisted state/attribution and retry behavior. Capture evidence using the existing artifact workflow; keep executed run results separate from product-map coverage.json, which records documentation scope.