Files
PaperClipAI/maps/feature-map
DottaandPaperclip e5713d95c6 test(e2e): add scheduled routine journey (#18728)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks, projects, and routines.
> - Daily QA must exercise the staging app through normal browser and
API surfaces.
> - A schedule must create real work and retain its result and history.
> - Pausing that schedule must prevent the next invocation.
> - The routine journey in #18652 passed in QA, while its separate
completion journey has not passed.
> - This PR delivers the routine test independently and preserves its
measured flow and assertions.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #18652. This is the routine-only delivery from that PR. The
original completion implementation and its failed attempts remain on
#18652.

## What Changed

- Add the target-independent `routine-scheduled-run` journey with one
native run and seven required checks.
- Start from the measured routine source
`ac4efb7c6f4782ea806661683c656fd2b4cc3189`. Keep its request, seven
success assertions, one native-run limit, and 65-second pause check.
- Bound each observed GET by the original remaining journey deadline.
Preserve the normal API timeout for other callers. Keep the original
routine error if final trigger disabling also fails, save a closed
secondary receipt, and fail an otherwise successful journey when
disabling fails.
- Narrow the shared output-reader type to its one-argument GET
capability without changing its runtime code.
- Register only this case in the catalog, types, feature associations,
dispatcher, and definition hash. Keep the strict catalog expectation in
sync.
- Retain the real Routines component controls and the existing
project-flow coverage for the shared browser helper.
- Document resource cleanup and the 65-second pause observation.
Preserve the current routine map content.

## Verification

- The original source passed [QA staging run
41567574185](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41567574185-1/).
TestOps launch 1657 / result 3431 maps to case 718. All seven checks and
five phases passed. One scheduler-bound native run, saved output
attribution, the full pause window, and cleanup were verified.
- Current source `8f62137f130f59fd3e39276e3d60185ddff24517` passed
[fresh QA staging run
41582706162](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41582706162-1/)
against Core `09162fe893b464dd2ccdafd14bd3ef1611202a86`. TestOps launch
1855. All seven checks, five phases, and all three workflow jobs passed.
The run used one scheduler-bound native turn and observed 65.352 seconds
after pause and completion. Canonical evidence collection and normal
cleanup completed, with no active operations and the owned agent
terminal.
- This fresh pass covers the reviewed deadline and failure-reporting
changes in the current source. The earlier ac4 pass and the
byte-preserving b940 extraction remain historical records under their
original conditions; neither failed attempts nor prior source conditions
are regraded.
- Causal controls: six assertions failed on the old behavior, then all
62 focused controls passed after the repair. Local: 834 related support
tests, 41 shared chat/output-reader tests, and 26 unchanged real
component controls passed. Runner E2E typecheck, recursive typecheck,
build, maps, token gates, and `git diff --check` passed. The temporary
output-reader type mismatch exposed by typecheck was corrected by
narrowing the capability type.
- The first restricted build/typecheck invocations failed because local
tsx IPC was denied. A restricted support run also lacked the report CLI
output. The same source passed with normal owned local IPC allowed; the
original logs remain retained.
- The original head's hosted e2e shard 2/8 failed at the unchanged
mobile preference frame-count test: expected more than five frames,
observed five. The cause is unknown. Its original log remains retained;
it is not labeled a proven flake. No CI rerun was requested.
- Current-head full CI run 41580423918, attempt 1, passed. The fresh
review is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. The broad local suite was
not repeated. The earlier full local run recorded in #18643 had four
failures and did not reach 164 serialized groups; this PR does not claim
an all-local pass.
- Prior failed routine attempts remain recorded. They exposed composer
focus, collapsed schedule controls, pending browser events, and Markdown
serialization problems. The measured later pass does not regrade those
attempts.

## Risks

- The shared browser-event helper also serves task creation and project
creation. Its regression tests and existing consumers remain included.
- The staging pass qualifies the captured source and configuration. The
coordinator retains source merging, daily pinning, and plan selection.
- The repository test and the unpassed completion test are not
registered by this PR.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact
deployment ID and context window are not exposed by 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 issue/PR references)

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-11-02 23:25:56 -06:00
..

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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:

  1. Sub-features — stable backticked local keys, full capability IDs, and observable behavior/states, such as - `company`: `onboarding/company` — create a company.
  2. How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
  3. Driving it with — starts with Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, with Automated: and Manual: paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly.
  4. 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.