<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/106/changes/paperclip/106 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people hire agents and select execution environments. > - The name and adapter dialog saves an inactive draft before model connection. > - That draft can inherit its environment through a null defaultEnvironmentId. > - Managed-only and forced Kubernetes policy resolve that inheritance to an environment ID. > - The readiness gate compared the stored null with that ID and treated the selection as unsaved. > - This change accepts unchanged inheritance and keeps preparation and save-failure gates. > - People can select auth, open Advanced, and test a saved account before finishing setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The Connect a model screen disabled all auth controls for a draft from the name and adapter dialog under managed-only or forced Kubernetes policy. Reloading did not recover it. The draft had no explicit environment, which is a valid inherited selection. **Expected behavior** Keep connection controls usable once the draft and environment are ready. Test the saved agent against its resolved environment before hiring finishes. Continue to block tests during preparation or an unsaved environment change. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable managed-only execution with a valid instance default, or force Kubernetes. 2. Open New agent, enter a name, and choose Claude or Codex. 3. Reach Connect a model with the saved draft's defaultEnvironmentId still null. 4. Try the saved subscription, API-key tile, or Advanced gateway. This follows #17761. The roadmap and related PR search found no existing fix for this readiness regression. ## What Changed - Accept the inherited selection when neither the draft nor the user specifies an environment. - Retain the existing preparation, loading, selection-save, and connection-test gates. - Cover Claude and Codex under managed plugin, managed sandbox, and forced Kubernetes policy. - Extend preparation coverage to both explicit and inherited environments. - Add the inherited-draft journey to the feature map. ## Verification - Hosted reproduction on Coree71a23c01from a macOS browser: one owned draft was created through the real name/adapter UI. Its persisted environment was null. Auth controls were disabled before and after reload. The instance required managed execution. - Cleanup used the normal Terminate action. Readback confirmed lifecycleState=terminated with no lifecycle error. The roster returned to its original two active agents. No existing agent, task, account, or instance setting was changed. - Before the fix, four inherited-connection cases and the inherited preparation case failed. The explicit-environment preparation control passed. - After the fix, 140 tests passed across NewAgent.test.tsx, test-agent-setup.test.ts, and qualify-claude-setup.test.ts. Coverage includes same-agent probes before Finish, preparation waits, account preservation, failed-save retry, stale reads, and runner qualification. - npm --prefix ui run typecheck passed, including Storybook catalog generation and tsc -b. Direct UI TypeScript, token gates, map checks, and git diff --check also passed. - The pnpm entry point stalled while resolving its pinned version on this host; both owned attempts were stopped. Running the same UI typecheck script through npm passed. Full local workspace typecheck/build were not repeated because Cargo is absent. The exact-head CI run supplies the full workspace validation. - Automated CI onf2a5a2df7passed all checks. Standard review found only the explanatory source comment, which contributor policy forbids. The comment was removed in8f43a6d80, and its thread was resolved. The runtime expression and tests are unchanged. Fresh CI passes on8f43a6d80: 55 successful checks and two intentional skips. The full workflow includes build, typecheck, all test shards, Rust, and end-to-end checks: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40591187819. Standard Greptile returned 5/5, then Apex returned 5/5 with zero new comments on the same head: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17944#issuecomment-6454535506. No review threads remain unresolved; the PR is conflict-free. - The diff was reviewed for secrets, PII, and run artifacts. Evidence stays outside git. - No deployment, live post-fix provider test, or VM provisioning was performed. Component tests simulate API responses; the hosted check proves the original failure. ## Risks This changes only how the wizard recognizes an inherited environment. It does not change the environment resolver, lifecycle, approval policy, or lease admission. The existing preparation and failed-save guards remain active. No migration is required. Hosted acceptance of the fix requires a later authorized deployment. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, browser inspection, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window size are not exposed. ## 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 described the issue in-PR following the bug report fields - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run the targeted tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Standard Greptile and Apex are 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 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:
baselineoroperation-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
noneonly 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
When a change adds/removes a capability or changes its behavior, API, permission, tool binding, CLI support, or work mode, update the affected companion and product recipe as appropriate in the same change. 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.