Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 2cbca4ceb0 fix: retain channel tools across task continuations (#16806)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Chat channels give an agent tools for its assigned task.
> - Each later run must resolve the task and its accepted requester
again.
> - Some native runs store the task in a database column without the
older JSON fields.
> - Tool discovery read only the JSON fields. GitHub calls also required
a new inbound comment.
> - This pull request uses the durable task binding and accepted request
history.
> - Later runs retain their channel tools while current access checks
still apply.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A GitHub task can find `begin_review` on its first run, then receive an
empty tool list on a later native run. If discovery is repaired alone, a
call can still fail because the later run has no new inbound comment.
Slack and voice tool access also read the older JSON task fields.

**Expected behavior**

A later run for the same task can find and call its assigned channel
tools. The current requester, task, company, agent, endpoint, and access
rules must still allow the call. Revoked access must fail.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Start a GitHub task and accept its linked requester.
2. Confirm that the runtime can find `begin_review`.
3. Start a later native run with `nativeIssueId`, accepted parent
identity, and no JSON task ID or new wake comment.
4. Search for `begin_review` again. Before this change, the search
returns an empty list.
5. Repair discovery alone and call `read_pull_request`. Before the
request-history fix, the call fails with no active conversation
capability.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Reproduced in source tests before this patch. The branch includes master
at `fa50cab5685b9cdbb26ad9c610cc5b6c373d3ff4`.

**Additional context**

This is a core run-binding bug. The tests use PostgreSQL and synthetic
provider responses. They do not send live reviews, Slack messages, or
phone calls.

## What Changed

- Resolve run task IDs from durable columns, with legacy JSON fields as
a fallback.
- Use the same binding in the gateway, access policy, identity service,
and channel runtime preparation.
- Recover accepted channel request history across later runs. Keep
company, task, agent, and requester boundaries.
- Recover older wake sources through verified parent runs, including
after same-user board follow-ups. Clear the board message’s own legacy
wake fallback. Keep cycle checks without a fixed limit on valid task
history.
- Retain the GitHub origin after a board comment from the same accepted
user. Skip GitHub origin lookup results from other providers.
- Keep ordinary board tools available when the requester changes. Accept
legacy user comments without an author-type field. Still reject explicit
malformed task IDs.
- Prevent a later failure reply from replacing an earlier final GitHub
answer. Recheck this rule under the publication lease.
- Rotate the native tool contract to replace retained sessions with an
older tool list.
- Add continuation, publication, revocation, and boundary tests. Update
the access and feature maps.

## Verification

- Red: the later GitHub assigned-tool search returned an empty list
before the binding fix.
- Red: the later GitHub read failed with no active conversation
capability before the request-history fix.
- Green: runtime MCP discovery, GitHub read/begin/submit review, and
response publication pass for monitor and same-user board continuations.
- Green: Slack history, retained access controls, revocation, and voice
gateway continuation pass.
- Green: 35 channel, failure-publication, legacy-origin, long-history,
and provenance tests pass. Both review findings had failing tests before
their fixes.
- Green: 107 gateway, operation-credential, identity, and provenance
tests pass. These cover both first-run CI failures without changing
their tests.
- Green: 122 runtime, discovery-policy, and native-session tests pass; 2
unrelated tests are skipped.
- Map checks and whitespace checks pass.
- Updated to master in `cfcaba22628772d7fe1fb32b57ff7031c7072781`. The
sole conflict was two tests added at the same location. Both the
continuation test and the publication 403/401 test are retained.
- Current local verification: all 179 gateway, credential,
requester-identity, access-policy, runtime-context, and session-resume
tests passed. Repository typecheck and build passed. Map and whitespace
checks passed.
- The new review regression first returned no source for a same-user
board follow-up over legacy wake metadata. After the repair, all 27
provenance and channel cases passed. The combined GitHub
discovery/read/begin/submit path and revoked access are covered.
- The broader local channel run passed 176 cases and failed four
timing/setup cases: a 15-second Slack authorization timeout,
webhook-verification polling, a Slack acknowledgement deadline, and
Discord setup polling. All four passed in isolation without source,
assertion, or deadline changes. The earlier failure record is retained;
the exact load/order cause is not established. Full CI must pass on the
latest commit.
- Current head: `7b9a08dcbc7b8140b589742f136944270b0496bb`. Repository
typecheck and build pass on this commit. Greptile completed on this
exact commit with 5/5; all four review threads are resolved. The
final-head [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39278921653)
passed: 55 checks passed and 2 intentionally skipped, with no failures
or pending checks. This includes the full sharded test matrix, browser
tests, typecheck, build, and Runner verification. Results were delayed
during the [GitHub Actions
incident](https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/8tzbpcnl75jp). An
additional unsharded local full test run has not completed; the
completed full-suite evidence is CI.
- Earlier verification: the first PR commit failed two server suites.
Those failures were fixed and verified before this update. The original
4 GiB sandbox could not complete full local typechecking or tests; the
current checkout completed typechecking and build. The full test suite
runs through the CI shards. No full local test-suite pass or live
provider delivery is claimed.

## Risks

- Request history can restore the wrong authority if its scope is too
broad. The resolver checks each accepted parent against the task,
company, agent, and requester. Tests cover invalid and cyclic history.
- The native contract change starts a new provider session for older
contracts.
- No database migration or public API schema changes are required. Each
tool call still checks live access.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose the exact
deployment model ID or context-window size. The agent used reasoning,
repository tools, code edits, and local test 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>
2026-10-19 11:20:39 -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, 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 the affected cross-links together. Indexes discover recipes automatically. 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, navigation metadata, 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 generated maps/generated/coverage.json, which lists page references.

Local authorship and generated indexes

Change only the recipes, access contracts and stories whose behavior or intent changed. Feature recipes own navigation metadata; stories own small parameters.paperclip annotations. Do not register entries or refresh counts in shared READMEs, inventories, fingerprints or review journals.

node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs validates and generates aggregate navigation, Storybook data, verification routes and the page inventory. All outputs live in ignored maps/generated/, ui/storybook/generated/, and the ignored Storybook preview.tsx wrapper. Start/build and UI typechecking generate their own inputs. A clean merged checkout therefore assembles both branches' changes automatically.

Git provides history and diffs. PRs, issues and CI artifacts retain review/run evidence for the named revision. Capability associations do not create whole-file review dependencies. Keep durable scenario limits in the affected recipe or story.