DottaandPaperclip
69ac928d2b
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - An operator can rebuild a destroyed workspace from saved task attachments. > - The first reconstruction run must pass current source and execution checks. > - A temporary bootstrap failure can create a bounded retry before provider work starts. > - The retry has a new run ID, so the first-run-only reconstruction check rejects it. > - This change verifies the retry chain back to the approved first run and keeps current safety checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16690. **What happened?** After an operator records workspace reconstruction, a safe bootstrap retry is cancelled before provider startup. The normal retry scheduler creates the successor. The reconstruction check then rejects its immediate predecessor because it expects the original failed export run. **Expected behavior** A verified automatic retry can continue under the same reconstruction decision and remaining retry budget. Changed sources, unrelated executions, uncertain outcomes, pause and later human blocks must still stop startup. **Steps to reproduce** Record reconstruction with a retry budget remaining. Let its first run fail before provider work starts with recorded bootstrap evidence. Use the normal bounded retry scheduler and the locked dispatch gate. Before this change, the scheduler succeeds but dispatch returns false. ## What Changed - Verify the predecessor chain back to the recovery action's exact first continuation. - Check company, task, agent, terminal predecessor state and each scheduler-owned wake. Reject cycles, foreign parents and forged wakes. - Exclude only those verified predecessors from the unrelated-newer-run check. Keep source hashes, original result identity and all current execution gates. - Reuse the existing reconciliation proof for failed predecessors. Keep the original retry limit. - Add real PostgreSQL scheduler and assembled-heartbeat regressions. Update the recovery guide and feature map. ## Verification - The baseline regression failed at final dispatch after the normal retry scheduler created its successor. - The corrected focused group passes 133 tests across reconstruction, retry scheduling and dispatch. It admits two bounded bootstrap retries and refuses a third. The assembled heartbeat enters the provider once for an eligible retry and zero times after a controlled post-claim human block. - An intermediate negative case exposed missing predecessor-outcome validation. Reusing the existing reconciliation proof fixes it. Deleted sources, pause, forged wakes, foreign parents, unrelated runs and new recovery holds remain refused. - Full workspace typecheck and build pass on rebased head `bd301ec8a703fa1cdc9e1db2638440d203e8d57a`. The rebased focused group passes all 133 tests. All CI gates pass on that exact head, including general/serialized tests, Runner, build and browser gates. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved threads. A clean full local `pnpm test:run` is running; the local source stays frozen for that run. - Module boundaries, maps and diff whitespace checks pass. Live staging acceptance follows the qualified full Cloud deployment. - The earlier full local run for #16690 failed while files changed and its PATH hid `lsof`. All five affected suites then passed in a clean run: 246 passed, three skipped. Those results do not establish a full local pass for this follow-up. ## Risks - Retry ancestry is a rare recovery path. Its primary-key reads grow with the chain and stop at 64 predecessors. Ordinary runs perform no new ancestry reads. - Unknown effects and active recovery obligations stay held. This does not reset budgets, change provider lifecycle policy, grant access or replay completed actions. - No schema migration or new API is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use and code execution. The session does not expose an exact backend model 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 (focused checks; full-run scope is recorded above) - [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 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.
Browse features
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. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
Before driving a journey
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 filename and entry-point ID, 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.
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. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
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:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - 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.