DottaandPaperclip
3bbc2104b6
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map records product entry points and verification recipes. > - The paired agent access map records APIs and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. > - The new index in #16987 made several missing capabilities easier to find. > - Those gaps hid existing assistant, privacy, cost, and operator workflows. > - This pull request adds 15 capabilities with source references, test scope, and manual checks. > - Readers can find these workflows without treating documentation or structural checks as live proof. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16987. Related map work: #16025 and #16214. A search of related pull requests found no duplicate of these additions. **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/` and `maps/agent-access-map/`. **What's wrong?** The maps omit public assistant MCP connections, private task and project sharing, subscription fees, cost-recording recovery, agent API keys, keyboard entry points, and several operator CLI workflows. **Suggested fix** Add product recipes and matching access records. Show the full capability IDs in the README index and each page. Keep the existing ID format and all 175 existing IDs. Exclude AI account pools. ## What Changed - Add the `assistant-connections` family with setup, consent, device login, client use, and revocation. - Add `tasks/privacy`, `projects/privacy`, `budgets-costs/subscriptions`, and `budgets-costs/accounting-recovery`. - Add `agents/api-keys`, `agents/managed-agent-setup`, and `navigation-preferences/command-palette`. - Add `cli-operations/feedback-export`, `chat-channels/outbound-email`, and `instance-operations/runtime-setup`. - Pair all 15 additions with access rules, source evidence, manual checks, and explicit coverage gaps. Update the visible index to 35 families and 190 capability IDs. - Add cross-links from existing access, connection setup, search, and CLI recipes. Do not change the schema or add AI account pools. - Clarify that the task Share sheet displays direct and inherited access. Manage inherited access at its ancestor or project source. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes: 35 areas and 190 paired capability IDs, with valid references and contract fields. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes: 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - A comparison with the base confirms all 175 existing IDs remain and exactly the intended 15 IDs were added. The README index matches the discovered feature metadata. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` cannot run because this checkout lacks `storybook/internal/csf-tools` and installed workspace dependencies. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build` were attempted. All stopped before their task ran: the pnpm 9.15.4 bootstrap could not fetch and verify its registry packages in this environment. - Source review covers the documented UI, CLI, routes, services, and existing tests. No live browser, provider, or authorization journey was run. New access records remain `baseline`, `source-only`, and `not-run`. - Greptile and the Paperclip reviewer both rate current commit `bb8eb797b0a1dc26256faf2f0e57cbe7abc9adcf` 5/5. The inherited-access review thread is resolved. - [GitHub CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39466772379) passes for that commit, including typecheck, build, unit tests, Runner checks, and browser tests. Browser shard 7 passed after one retry for a runner shutdown. All PR checks are successful, neutral, or skipped. ## Risks - Low runtime risk: this change only edits maps. No application behavior, API, dependency, or schema changes. - Source-reviewed recipes can drift or miss deployment-specific behavior. The records state their limits and require live checks before a capability is marked verified. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model ID `gpt-6.1-sol`, 475,000-token context window, xhigh reasoning effort, with tool use and code execution. ## 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>
5.6 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Projects and repositories
People group tasks into projects, attach goals and repositories, and configure the context and defaults used by project work.
Feature ID: projects.
Implementation: project list, project detail.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
lifecycle:projects/lifecycle— create, name, organize, and archive projects.task-context:projects/task-context— inspect project tasks and create work in the selected project.repositories:projects/repositories— configure repository/workspace sources and verify usable checkouts.defaults:projects/defaults— maintain project instructions, environment, goal, and budget context where offered.privacy:projects/privacy— create private projects, inspect access members, and manage their audience without publishing protected tasks.
How to get to it (user POV)
project-list
Open /projects, create a project, and enter its overview or Issues view.
repository-settings
Open /projects/:projectId/configuration and its repository/workspace settings.
project-access
Open /projects/:projectId/configuration, use Private project, and choose Manage access or View access according to your authority. Create a private project through the supported creation surface or API when needed for a fixture.
Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use a disposable project and a small repository you can access; record checkout and credential ownership.
project-list
Automated: projects UI and project detail are component tests.
Manual: Create a project, add a task from its view, and reload. Verify the task belongs to that project, list counts are plausible, and links preserve company scope. Archive only the disposable project and inspect list/task behavior.
repository-settings
Automated: repository persistence and repository browser suite cover configured repository workflows.
Manual: Attach a small repository, save, and create a project task. Inspect the actual checkout/revision used by its run. Test an invalid repository and missing credentials without treating a saved URL as a working workspace.
project-access
Automated: Privacy production review covers persisted project audience changes, task inheritance, and actor intersections. Privacy controls covers UI controls and task-cache invalidation after membership removal. These tests do not prove both people’s live navigation.
Manual: As an ordinary authenticated project owner, create a private project and task. Add another company person and an eligible agent through Manage access, reload, and inspect their project discovery and task reads. The added person can view members but cannot change the audience. Remove them, reload their session, and retry direct project/task links. Confirm removing the owner is unavailable or rejected. Add a direct grant for one private task, then open the project to the company after inspecting the confirmation. Verify the project becomes discoverable, protected tasks remain private, and project-derived task access no longer substitutes for direct task access. Test the agent and its responsible person separately.
Sources: Project properties, access members, project routes, and authorization.
Gotchas
-
A private project’s member list is readable to an authorized project reader. Task access-grant inspection has a stricter management boundary.
-
/overviewnow selects Configuration, not a distinct overview page. Personal join/leave and star controls have their own persistence and should be checked when affected; Star/Unstar {project name} is the visible star action. -
Project name slugs change on rename and have no historical alias lookup. Reopen a renamed project through its stable UUID route, wait for the current Configuration form, and record the newly normalized URL before reloading.
-
Project repository configuration and a provisioned execution workspace are different records.
-
See workspaces, goals, and budgets for those features.
-
Do not assume a deleted or archived project should erase its historical task evidence.
Automatic repository skills
Creating or attaching a GitHub repository enqueues skill import without another setup step. Check Skills → Sources and the installed library afterward. Ordinary edits to older projects do not adopt their repositories; explicit adoption belongs in Sources. Removing a repository retains installed skills and originating project access but stops its automatic tracking. Changing the ref does not retarget existing skill references.
Documentation scope: Projects and execution workspaces
Provider-specific provisioning, multi-repository/submodule edge cases, Git reconciliation variants, and all service exposure combinations require deeper recipes.