DottaandPaperclip
db32bdf98b
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/8/changes/paperclip/8 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub tools save review assessments and publish their confirmed receipts. > - A timeout before publication staging can leave an invocation with no saved publication. > - Exact replay must repeat only the authorized preflight and converge on one publication. > - PR requests also share an App-owned summary comment. Progress and maintenance must preserve its final content. > - A native turn can intentionally wait for an author without sending another reply. > - This pull request repairs unstaged replay and prevents queued or passive-wait notices from replacing a published assessment. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related repairs: Refs #16883, Refs #16284, Refs #16275 recover saved publication receipts. Refs #17183 covers unavailable approved replay output. Refs #17714 fixes a separate publication lock-order problem. **What happened?** Exact review retries can return null `begin_review` output or `github_publication_unavailable` after an upstream read times out before publication staging. Separately, response maintenance can replace a completed PR assessment with “Review queued…” or a generic missing-response notice after an authorized no-new-work reply. The latter run can correctly commit a passive wait while its external summary is still overwritten. **Expected behavior** Exact retries repeat only the authorized preflight. A saved or uncertain publication keeps its existing recovery owner. Queued acknowledgements preserve final App-owned summary content. A committed native passive wait settles its current acknowledgement without writing a response or treating an old summary as a new-run reply. Success before presentation remains held until a durable decision exists; exact current-run confirmed receipts can retire their placeholders. Genuine missing/error responses retain fallback handling. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Hold a GitHub metadata read until an authorized gateway call times out before publication staging. Repeat the exact request. 2. Publish a valid PR assessment. Send an ordinary author reply that asks for no new work and no duplicate comment. 3. Commit the native `response_wake` with a no-comment server presentation decision. Run response maintenance twice. 4. The base returns the invalid replay result or replaces the assessment with progress/fallback text. **Paperclip version or commit** Replay regression: `41c42895fa862c586ff841f8c50200d93ffc83a4`. Maintenance regression: the previous PR head `c7553d2325df53d98d9febff7023ade4b1e704eb`. Both use real PostgreSQL and simulated GitHub responses. The maintenance failure was also observed in normal hosted use. **Deployment mode** Source checkout on macOS arm64 with isolated PostgreSQL 18, followed by a dedicated QA qualification. No production rollout is included. ## What Changed - Route exact `begin_review` replay through its typed owner. Repeat unstaged preflight only with the complete request digest and no successful invocation result. - Preserve current policy, immutable assessments, unique action keys, receipt recovery, and provider leases. - Preserve a verified App/marker-owned final shared PR comment during acknowledgements. New canonical assessments can still replace it at the same or a new head. - Project only a bounded server-committed native wait decision. Settle the current main-PR acknowledgement without provider writes or a fabricated current-run reply receipt. - Hold succeeded native runs while presentation is undecided, including the committed-before-presentation window. An exact current-run confirmed receipt can still retire its placeholder. - Keep missing/error fallback and uncertain publication checks. Update the bot guide, execution semantics, maps, and real-database regressions. ## Verification - **Causal RED:** exact begin replay returned null; exact unstaged submit replay returned unavailable. The new real-database maintenance test then reproduced the exact generic summary overwrite. Its first repair also exposed an earlier queued-acknowledgement overwrite. Both publication boundaries are repaired. Four additional ordering regressions reproduced the generic PATCH while native presentation was undecided; the corrected tests hold until the same row settles. - **Local GREEN:** 196 complete GitHub workflow cases pass on an empty migrated PostgreSQL fixture. This includes queued/running preservation, both success-before-presentation windows, null/scalar/invalid decisions, exact-current versus predecessor receipts, durable acknowledgement settlement, repeated no-op maintenance, eventual genuine missing/error fallback, pending writes and same/new-head canonical replacement. Workspace typecheck, exact-head build, maps and whitespace checks pass. The real database respects the actual selected-column projection. - **Command:** `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL=<owned-postgres-18> pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'GitHub agent review workflow'`. - **CI/review:** historical heads `c7553d2325df53d98d9febff7023ade4b1e704eb` and `4d00d3af6f2ccbda8f38a98f81d392d82dd3c59c` had Greptile 5/5. Final readiness head `2d267f1e4aa0b835a11aede97798fbd800d9cd96` passed independent source review with no actionable finding and fresh Greptile 5/5 with zero unresolved threads; all 54 check runs pass with 2 intended skips; Snyk is successful and the merge state is CLEAN. The dedicated QA destination acceptance also passed. - **Full-suite limitation:** the earlier `pnpm test:run` attempt produced no final summary. Its retained log reports failures in unchanged workspace-runtime tests and 15-second gateway-audit and stale-question timeouts. Their cause remains unknown. Do not treat the targeted results as a full local-suite pass. - **Live evidence and limits:** normal native OpenCode/DeepSeek review delivery published a useful assessment, inline finding and App check at the exact reviewed head. A separate ordinary author reply delivered a useful answer and settled. Those are ordinary delivery proofs, not live injected-timeout proofs. A later no-new-work reply exposed the maintenance overwrite. The final combined source `070e9c4ead9341cd497b23f533a91bf194475e79` includes the exact publication repair and passed normal review → ordinary author reply → quiet destination acceptance. A normal current-head review restored the legitimate assessment; the ordinary no-new-work reply then committed a passive wait without new GitHub tools. The same 1,436-character summary stayed identical while queued/running, after terminal settlement, and more than 3 minutes 50 seconds after successful cleanup. Review rows and receipts stayed unchanged, with no owner, live run or queued input. The timeout fault fixtures prove replay and single-publication safety. The historical first upstream timeout producer remains unknown. The live board reads do not expose the raw acknowledgement action row: its terminal cancellation and next-pass no-op are real-PostgreSQL fixture proofs, while the hosted checks prove actual destination stability. The hosted journey did not inject a timeout or pause the terminal/presentation writer window. Private destinations, raw receipts and internal task identifiers remain outside this PR. ## Risks - Original and repeated metadata reads can overlap. The immutable assessment, action uniqueness and publication lease must remain authoritative. - Missing complete request identity or a deleted completed receipt remains held. The gateway does not reconstruct receipts or relax approval. - Passive suppression requires actual native mode/committed phase, current source ownership and the server's no-comment decision. It applies only to the main PR review surface. Uncertain current writes stay held; other surfaces keep normal placeholder retirement. - There is no migration, credential change, dependency or new retry scheduler. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`) in Codex assisted with diagnosis, implementation, tests, and source review. It used reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The context window size is 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 (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.
The chat scenario catalog describes how people might request these capabilities in conversation, including setup and permission branches. These are planned Product E2E journeys, not live coverage results.
IDs and references
Use the existing IDs in issues, PRs, Storybook annotations, tests, and verification evidence:
| Reference | Example | Defined by |
|---|---|---|
| Feature ID | onboarding |
The recipe filename without .md. |
| Capability ID | onboarding/company |
The feature ID plus a key from its Sub-features list, separated by /. |
| Entry-point reference | onboarding.md#web-wizard | The recipe filename plus its entry-point heading. The local entry-point ID is web-wizard. |
For example, report verifying onboarding/company through web-wizard.
Capabilities describe behavior; entry points identify the surface used to exercise
it. Entry-point IDs are separate from generated capability IDs. Both maps and
Storybook use the same full capability IDs. Each child page states its feature
ID; recipe bullets show the full capability ID beside the local key, and access
companions show it beneath the local heading. Local keys remain unchanged for
parsing and existing anchors.
Keep recipe filenames, sub-feature keys, and entry-point keys stable when changing display titles or navigation. Renaming a filename or key changes its references. The section headings below are navigation labels, not additional IDs.
Browse features
Use this index to open a recipe or copy its feature and full capability IDs.
Getting started and access
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
onboarding |
Onboarding and first work | onboarding/instance, onboarding/company, onboarding/adapter, onboarding/first-task, onboarding/resume |
access |
Login, invitations, and access | access/login, access/invitations, access/membership, access/resources, access/cli-auth |
companies |
Companies and portability | companies/selection, companies/identity, companies/decision-models, companies/prompt-injection-prevention, companies/fast-responses, companies/agent-observability, companies/archive, companies/portability |
Tasks and conversations
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
tasks |
Task creation and lifecycle | tasks/create, tasks/organize, tasks/properties, tasks/discussion, tasks/completion, tasks/privacy |
task-coordination |
Delegation, dependencies, and signoff | task-coordination/delegation, task-coordination/dependencies, task-coordination/signoff, task-coordination/tree-control |
inbox-search |
Inbox, decisions, and search | inbox-search/views, inbox-search/triage, inbox-search/decisions, inbox-search/search, inbox-search/toasts |
agent-chat |
Agent conversations and project handoff | agent-chat/discovery, agent-chat/history, agent-chat/handoff, agent-chat/conference-room |
questions-and-approvals |
Questions and approvals | questions-and-approvals/questions, questions-and-approvals/dismiss-and-reopen, questions-and-approvals/confirmations, questions-and-approvals/plan-review, questions-and-approvals/audience, questions-and-approvals/governance, questions-and-approvals/tool-review, questions-and-approvals/continuation |
steering |
Steering and queued messages | steering/queue, steering/edit-order-discard, steering/steer, steering/interrupt, steering/stop-and-pause, steering/drafts, steering/approval-queue |
documents-artifacts |
Documents, attachments, and work products | documents-artifacts/documents, documents-artifacts/annotations, documents-artifacts/attachments, documents-artifacts/work-products, documents-artifacts/library |
Agents and reusable capabilities
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
agents |
Hiring, configuration, and organization | agents/hire, agents/grok-bot, agents/instructions, agents/organization, agents/primary-agent, agents/lifecycle, agents/built-in, agents/api-keys, agents/managed-agent-setup |
runs-adapters |
Runs, harnesses, and model accounts | runs-adapters/availability, runs-adapters/validation, runs-adapters/runs, runs-adapters/session |
skills |
Skills and Skill Studio | skills/discovery, skills/authoring, skills/versions, skills/policy, skills/testing |
teams |
Team packages and installation | teams/discovery, teams/preview, teams/install, teams/configuration |
Projects and execution
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
projects |
Projects and repositories | projects/lifecycle, projects/task-context, projects/repositories, projects/defaults, projects/privacy |
goals |
Goals and work alignment | goals/hierarchy, goals/alignment, goals/navigation |
workspaces |
Workspaces, services, and files | workspaces/binding, workspaces/provisioning, workspaces/services, workspaces/files-git, workspaces/closure |
execution-environments |
Execution environments | execution-environments/configuration, execution-environments/capabilities, execution-environments/probe, execution-environments/assignment, execution-environments/images |
recovery |
Recovery | recovery/diagnosis, recovery/bounded-continuation, recovery/source-action, recovery/exhaustion, recovery/workspace, recovery/unknown-outcome, recovery/user-continuation, recovery/reconnect |
Apps, channels, and extensions
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
connection-setup |
Connection setup | connection-setup/catalog, connection-setup/identity-and-access, connection-setup/credentials, connection-setup/handoff, connection-setup/draft-recovery, connection-setup/task-request, connection-setup/channel-setup, connection-setup/failure |
assistant-connections |
Assistant connections (MCP) | assistant-connections/setup, assistant-connections/consent, assistant-connections/device-login, assistant-connections/client-use, assistant-connections/revocation |
app-permissions |
App access and action permissions | app-permissions/agent-access, app-permissions/action-policy, app-permissions/catalog-change, app-permissions/test-action, app-permissions/account-maintenance |
chat-channels |
External chat and email | chat-channels/providers, chat-channels/identity, chat-channels/conversation, chat-channels/attachments, chat-channels/lifecycle, chat-channels/outbound-email |
gateways-profiles |
Tool gateways and access profiles | gateways-profiles/gateway, gateways-profiles/profiles, gateways-profiles/client-connect, gateways-profiles/tokens, gateways-profiles/activity |
secrets |
Secrets and proposals | secrets/company-secrets, secrets/user-secrets, secrets/proposals, secrets/vault-import, secrets/runtime-delivery |
plugins |
Plugins | plugins/installation, plugins/configuration, plugins/contributions, plugins/lifecycle |
Automation and structured work
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
routines |
Routines, schedules, and triggers | routines/definition, routines/triggers, routines/run-now, routines/history, routines/management |
cases |
Cases | cases/browse, cases/structure, cases/history, cases/task-links, cases/handoffs |
status-cards |
Status cards | status-cards/authoring, status-cards/generation, status-cards/inspection, status-cards/archive |
Oversight and operation
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
budgets-costs |
Costs and budgets | budgets-costs/cost-reporting, budgets-costs/budgets, budgets-costs/incidents, budgets-costs/resolution, budgets-costs/subscriptions, budgets-costs/accounting-recovery |
activity |
Dashboards and audit trails | activity/overview, activity/activity, activity/runs, activity/routine-audit, activity/timeline, activity/agent-commentary |
navigation-preferences |
Navigation, profile, and announcements | navigation-preferences/navigation, navigation-preferences/preferences, navigation-preferences/profile, navigation-preferences/announcements, navigation-preferences/fallbacks, navigation-preferences/command-palette |
instance-operations |
Instance operations | instance-operations/install-update, instance-operations/server-service, instance-operations/configuration, instance-operations/diagnostics, instance-operations/backup, instance-operations/runtime-setup |
cli-operations |
CLI/API and local worktrees | cli-operations/context, cli-operations/domain-commands, cli-operations/outputs, cli-operations/run-controls, cli-operations/worktree-instances, cli-operations/feedback-export |
Contributor surfaces
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
developer-labs |
Developer previews and diagnostic labs | developer-labs/design, developer-labs/interaction-labs, developer-labs/performance, developer-labs/route-gates |
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. Recipes are discovered automatically from their navigation
metadata; generation does not depend on this high-level index.
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 ID, full capability IDs and
entry-point ID (for example, onboarding/company through web-wizard), plus the
recipe link, 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. Product E2E reports reuse these capability IDs through the journey associations. Their coverage view shows which scenarios in a campaign are linked to each capability and the associated test results. An association or passing scenario does not certify the whole capability; unselected and unmapped journeys remain distinct.
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. Discovery uses the recipe and companion; keep the readable ID index above aligned when features or capability IDs change.
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 local keys, full capability IDs, and observable behavior/states,
such as
- `company`: `onboarding/company` — create a company. - 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.