DottaandPaperclip
e6dcd1e8e9
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents can submit suggestions and complaints while they work. > - Operators currently need database access to read those messages. > - That makes it hard to find feedback from one agent or share a specific message. > - This pull request adds a standard Commentary tab in Audit. > - Operators can filter messages, browse 50 at a time, and share links to full message dialogs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15367, which added feedback storage and agent submission. The duplicate search found no open PR for a commentary reader. **Subsystem affected** Server, shared API contracts, and the board UI. **Problem or motivation** Agent suggestions and complaints are stored but have no board reader. Operators must query the database to inspect feedback. **Proposed solution** Add Commentary to Audit without an experimental toggle. Show previews, agent and message-type filters, text search, and 50-message pages. Opening a row updates the URL. A copied URL opens the full message with its agent, task, and run context. **Alternatives considered** Direct database queries remain useful for operators, but do not provide a normal product workflow. An experimental setting would add setup to a read-only audit page. **Roadmap alignment** This completes the operator view for the existing feedback feature. It supports human oversight and does not change agent execution or task ownership. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped, board-only list and detail endpoints with audit permission and source-task privacy checks. - Return bounded previews and counts. Fetch full bodies only when a message opens. - Add the Commentary tab, search, filters, 50-row pagination, and URL-based selection. Audit tab destinations work in both layouts, with a classic sidebar entry for Commentary. - Add production Storybook examples for populated, filtered, linked, long, paginated, empty, loading, failed, denied, mobile, and light states. - Update API documentation and the feature and agent access maps. ## Verification - Final head `abc4a251c14cfbfec007542214beec528f2b18bf`: 55 checks pass; two conditional Storybook checks are skipped. The PR workflow is successful. Greptile is 5/5 with all findings resolved. - Focused database, HTTP, submission, OpenAPI, and UI regression tests cover company isolation, task privacy, filter bounds, 50-row pagination, and copied message links. - Browser Storybook journeys cover row opening, direct links, combined filters, search, and pagination. Storybook uses synthetic API fixtures; database authorization is tested separately. - Token gates, feature maps, and Storybook catalog validation pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm build-storybook` pass on the rebased branch. All 80 focused tests and all 37 Audit tests pass, including the real App route table in both layouts, task grant/revocation through HTTP, deleted-task privacy, and URL UI regressions. The full suite passes in the parallel PR CI matrix. The local serial full-suite run was stopped before completion after checking the recorded 94-minute serial duration. Local focused tests, workspace typecheck, production build, and final server/UI checks pass. - The linked-message Storybook test initially asserted against the loading dialog. It now waits for the message body; both direct-link and row-open journeys pass. - Native and legacy deleted-task privacy regressions failed before the fix and pass afterward. The reader checks the run task binding after the task foreign key clears. - A rapid search-then-agent-filter browser regression reproduced the search overwriting the selected agent. The pending search now restarts when URL filters change. The same browser test passes with both filters applied. - CI found two existing AuditHub assertions that still expected five tabs. They now assert the six-tab model and selected-company Commentary rendering. All 37 Audit tests pass. All other test and build jobs passed before this test-only correction. - The [agent-chat attachment browser test](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39307881171/job/118250189664) timed out waiting for an attachment preview. The [same shard passed on the prior head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39306658703/job/118245498343) with identical application code; the intervening change only updates AuditHub unit tests. The single retry passed on the same head. The precise cause of the earlier failure remains unconfirmed. ## Risks - Commentary may contain sensitive task context. The reader requires board access and audit permission, and filters source-task visibility before returning previews, counts, or full bodies. - Text search scans stored message bodies. Pages are bounded and full bodies are fetched on demand. - Offset pagination can shift if new messages arrive while paging. Ordering uses timestamp and ID for stable ties. - No database migration or agent submission behavior changes are required. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use, browser interaction, and code execution. The exact backend model ID and context-window size are 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 agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api requires operator rollout admission, a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.