Files
PaperClipAI/maps/README.md
T
DottaandPaperclip a61cf38106 docs: keep the feature map focused on substantial features (#18767)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The feature map describes product capabilities and user journeys.
> - Small fixes and test changes have added long notes to that map.
> - These notes make substantial features harder to find.
> - This pull request removes those additions from the last week's
changes and sets a clear rule for future additions.
> - The benefit is a smaller map with stable capability IDs and accurate
entry points.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Issue type**

Unclear or confusing documentation.

**Where is the issue?**

`maps/feature-map/`, the map maintenance instructions, and repository
rules.

**What's wrong?**

Between October 27 and November 3, 2026, 115 commits changed the feature
map. Many additions describe bug fixes, performance details, small UI
changes, or new tests. They do not introduce substantial product
features. The old synchronization instructions also encouraged a map
edit for every behavior change.

**Suggested fix**

Add a rule that requires a substantial new feature before expanding the
map. Remove minor-update notes. Keep genuine feature additions and
minimal corrections to existing instructions. The review covers master
through `b22ef22d56`; it does not revert application code. Conflict
resolution preserves later map changes from master outside that audit
snapshot.

Searched open GitHub PRs and issues for related feature-map work. No
duplicate cleanup was found. Substantial feature additions retained here
include Coordinator (#17983), the agent YAML editor (#18036), document
image galleries (#18157), remote workspace storage (#18403), native Kimi
(#18391), proactive chat messages (#18374), and the Sentry receiver
added in #18714.

## What Changed

- Add `rules/feature-map-scope.mdc` and register its `maps/**` scope
with Greptile.
- Align `AGENTS.md` and the shared map contract with that rule. Routine
fixes and test changes no longer require incidental map edits.
- Remove 755 net lines from 23 feature recipes. Preserve all 35 areas
and 192 capability IDs.
- Keep substantial features and the corrections needed for current
navigation, provider availability, and access boundaries.

Examples from the reviewed changes:

| Removed or shortened addition | Why it does not need a feature-map
expansion |
| --- | --- |
| Rounded composer image thumbnails (#18689) | Small UI change within
existing task creation. |
| Connection profile reads and review-count queries (#18687, #18688) |
Performance details within existing app permissions. |
| Warm-session, Retry, export-capacity, and tool-wait cases | Regression
details for existing execution and recovery. |
| New task-search, project-context, document-persistence, and routine
test journeys | Test additions for existing capabilities. The tests
remain in place. |
| New task button placement (#18703) | Another entry to an existing task
form. |
| Local browser verification notes | Run evidence belongs in the PR or
test report. |

## Verification

- `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes: 35 areas, 192 capability IDs,
valid references and contract fields.
- `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` passes: 328 files and 3,068
stories. Generated indexes remain ignored.
- Compared capability keys and navigation metadata in every edited
recipe with the original source. All are unchanged.
- Checked rule frontmatter, Greptile registration, representative scope
matches, and `git diff --check`.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass on
`9a60eef8eb8da9bc7c3a02203c79bec12e8c8b6b`. The final
`a0801e8a939494ecde3739097a80258917428e94` commit only corrects two
lines in the plugin-panel recipe; map and catalog checks pass again.
- Greptile reviewed the final `a0801e8a939494ecde3739097a80258917428e94`
head at 5/5 with no findings. The earlier review found one inaccurate
phrase about unavailable plugin panels. The hook confirms that readiness
gates automatic opening, while declared panels remain selectable. The
final documentation commit corrects that phrase and the thread is
resolved. Paperclip's refreshed review is advisory and remains queued.
- The earlier CI run failed two assertions: [server
4/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41634761842/job/125914173960)
counted three Anthropic identity calls instead of two in
`connection-management.integration.test.ts`; [chat
1/3](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41634761842/job/125914174257)
observed zero publications instead of one in the same-principal
endpoint-settlement case. Both exact tests pass locally on the rebased
head. This PR changes neither their source nor their expectations. These
failed results remain historical evidence.
- Final-head CI passed server 4/12 and all other suites except the first
[chat 1/3
attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41637834618/job/125925926131),
which repeated the same zero-publication assertion. The browser gate
passed. The single failed-job retry was accepted for this unchanged head
in [workflow attempt
2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41637834618/attempts/2).
[Chat 1/3 passed on that
retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41637834618/job/125933199635),
and the aggregate verification gate passed. Both required gates, `ci /
verify` and `ci / e2e`, are green on
`a0801e8a939494ecde3739097a80258917428e94`. The one retry allowance is
consumed.
- The first full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was interrupted before
completion so master could be rebased without changing source under
running tests. It is not a passing test result. Full current-head CI
remains required.
- No application code, tests, schemas, or lockfiles changed.

## Risks

- Low runtime risk. This change only edits documentation and review
guidance.
- Detailed regression instructions become less visible in the feature
map. Their tests and technical documentation remain available.
- Some additions mix a new feature with a small fix. Those blocks retain
the feature and shorten the incidental detail.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, Git history inspection,
repository tools, and code execution. The session does not expose a more
specific model deployment ID 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 — map, catalog,
capability-ID, and rule-scope checks; full Vitest limits are stated
above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable — no new runtime
tests apply to this documentation change
- [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>
2026-11-03 07:16:37 -06:00

11 KiB

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.

The chat scenario catalog adds natural-language requests, starting context and expected conversational outcomes for the same capability IDs. It lives with Product E2E as planning data; a scenario reference is neither a registered execution nor evidence that a journey passed.

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.

Capability identifiers

The feature ID is the recipe filename without .md, such as onboarding. The full capability ID joins that feature ID and a Sub-features key with /: the company key in feature-map/onboarding.md is onboarding/company. Its agent-access-map/onboarding.md companion uses the same local company key. The feature-map index lists the existing feature and full capability IDs.

Each child page states Feature ID: `onboarding`. after its introduction or product-map link. In feature recipes, show the full ID beside the parsed local key: - `company`: `onboarding/company` — create a company. In access companions and Storybook verification guidance, keep the existing local heading and put Capability ID: `onboarding/company`. beneath it. These labels make the existing identifiers visible without changing keys, anchors, or ID generation.

Use full capability IDs in cross-feature references, Storybook annotations, tests, issues, PRs, and verification evidence. Both segments use lowercase letters, digits, and hyphens. Keep filenames and keys stable when display titles or navigation labels change; renaming either changes the capability ID.

Entry-point IDs describe a surface, such as web-wizard, and are scoped to their recipe. Reference them with a recipe link, such as onboarding.md#web-wizard, and record the capability exercised separately. Navigation section labels are not capability IDs. See IDs and references for examples.

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, and its feature ID, followed by one H2 backticked local key per product sub-feature. Each capability starts with its full capability ID and 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

Add entries only for substantial new features under the feature-map scope rule. Routine fixes, polish, refactors, performance work, and test changes do not require map updates. Correct or remove existing text only when behavior or access changes make it materially inaccurate; keep the correction local to the affected recipe or companion. 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. Update the corresponding chat scenarios when their request, assumptions or expected outcome changes; use multiple cases for meaningfully different starting conditions rather than treating an API path as conversational coverage.

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. Keep the feature-map README's readable ID index aligned with those sources; it does not register entries for generation. Do not 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.