Devin FoleyandPaperclip
1aa0c36397
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their work. > - First-task onboarding turns a user's goal into an approved proposal. > - The interview offers a plan and a team to carry out that plan. > - The instructions leave execution after acceptance unclear. > - An agent can add a plan-only approval boundary and finish without doing the requested work. > - This change makes the approval scope explicit and tests both execution and plan-only outcomes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An onboarding agent can treat an interview about building a product as a request for a plan only. It can then retain the approved plan and close onboarding without creating execution tasks. The interview evaluation previously accepted that result. **Expected behavior** Acceptance of an execution proposal starts its selected work. An explicit plan-only request stops after planning. User-requested separate approvals and existing permission and budget controls still apply. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Choose the onboarding interview and describe a deliverable. 2. Accept the saved plan proposal. 3. Check that the agent starts the approved work instead of closing with only a plan. ## What Changed - Clarify execution intent, approval wording, continuation, and completion in the first-task prompt. - Require assigned child work and saved output in the interview acceptance evaluation. Use checkbox acceptance in the regular interview journey and retain conversational acceptance in the approval-reply suite. - Add an explicit plan-only acceptance journey and nine grader regression checks. - Update evaluation counts, grading versions, and onboarding verification guidance. ## Verification - Passed: all applicable CI checks on `198a6b47cac7`, including typechecks, the general and serialized server tests, Runner checks, build, and browser E2E shards. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42324855376). - Passed locally: the full Runner support suite, 6,860 tests across 323 files (three skipped), plus 13 onboarding asset tests. - Passed locally: the full workspace build, workspace package typechecks (server rechecked after restoring excluded-plugin SDK links), and the Runner evaluation TypeScript check. - Passed: map validation and whitespace checks. - Initial broad local checks failed during checkout preparation because PostgreSQL library symlinks and runtime/SDK assets were missing. Restoring the dependency setup made the affected controls pass. The full root test suite passed in CI; it was not rerun locally after that repair. - Live model journeys have not been run. Grader tests do not prove model compliance. ## Risks - Prompt behavior needs live qualification across providers. This change adds no server-side enforcement or permission bypass. - The new plan-only case adds four local evaluation cells. A full campaign now has 56 first-task cells. - Existing proposals that reserve later approval keep that restriction. This change does not rewrite tenant data or start existing onboarding tasks. - No schema migration or deployment is included. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, xhigh reasoning effort, with repository tools and local test execution. Context window size is 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 `#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 (focused and full Runner support locally; full root coverage passed in CI) - [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.
The chat scenario catalog uses these same IDs for human requests and expected outcomes. Its scenarios retain the access boundaries here; neither a CEO role nor a planned scenario grants board authority or establishes a working production tool binding.
Use full capability IDs when referring to access contracts outside their file:
onboarding/company means the company capability in onboarding.md in both maps.
The feature index lists feature and
capability IDs; IDs and references
explains entry-point references and stable naming.
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 is enabled by default, but explicit server,
company-allowlist and binding settings can narrow admission. It requires 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.
Connection-management reads support Standard, Ask and Plan; mutations require
Standard. Skill-test runs and nonstandard task-bridge keys cannot administer
connections. These gates supplement each operation's grants, resolved resource
and target scope, and responsible-user authority. See the
rollout policy
and connection authorization.
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.