Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 3b8324a233 fix(github): keep one main PR review comment and reconcile stopped work (#16901)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - GitHub connections send review requests to an assigned agent.
> - A PR needs one main comment that shows its current review state.
> - The response ledger used one comment per incoming request. Pushes
and follow-up messages created more placeholders.
> - Thread subscriptions also accepted requests addressed to external
bots. Recovery could leave an acknowledged request without a final
notice.
> - This pull request shares the main PR comment, filters other
recipients, and reconciles stopped work.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Related: #16874 showed the repeated placeholders. #15416 introduced the
per-request response path. The prior summary path used one PR-level
marker.

**What happened?**

Repeated pushes created new main PR comments. A subscribed `@greptile
review` message also woke the Paperclip bot. If execution stopped before
staging a milestone, its comment could keep claiming that work was
active.

**Expected behavior**

One bot keeps one main comment per PR. Progress and review results
update it. A message addressed to another recipient does not wake the
bot unless it also explicitly mentions this bot. Stopped work gets an
accurate notice.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Accept two review requests in one PR conversation.
2. Add `@greptile review` to that subscribed conversation.
3. Fail the assigned run before it stages a milestone. Run channel
maintenance.

## What Changed

- Add a durable main PR response target. Keep per-request receipts and
the existing publication lease.
- Recover the target from App-owned provider markers. Adopt older
placeholders and point verified duplicates to the current review.
- Use a queued notice before a PR run starts. Preserve version ordering
and final responses.
- Filter leading mentions addressed to another recipient. Explicit
mentions of this bot take precedence. Incidental mentions keep normal
thread behavior.
- Reconcile acknowledged requests after terminal execution. Show paused
state for saved requests on a blocked task. Preserve newer work and
confirmed or uncertain tool delivery.
- Keep a request open when its stale acknowledgement is suppressed.
Close placeholders after replies published elsewhere. Retire old
coalesced placeholders before replacing their receipts. Resolve native
request identity when legacy wake fields are absent.
- Update guidance, connection documentation, and feature/access maps.

## Verification

- Red: all three behavioral regressions failed on the original code. A
second review created a second comment; an external-bot request was
processed; stopped execution retained its working placeholder.
- Green: the same three cases passed after the fixes.
- Review regressions also failed before their repairs: a delayed
acknowledgement closed a new request; normal and stored formal-review
receipts left a live placeholder; coalesced completion lost a duplicate
receipt; native terminal work without legacy wake fields stayed queued.
All 13 combined regression and safety cases passed after repair.
- The same legacy receipt-loss bug was also reproduced in the
superseded-acknowledgement branch. Its four affected cases passed after
adding retirement before that receipt replacement.
- A further review regression reproduced paused requests rejecting
resumed progress and skipping stopped-run cleanup. Four cases failed
before repair; all eight resume and neighboring safety cases passed
afterward. Both paused-notice branches keep the request open.
- Repeated paused maintenance reproduced two needless GitHub edits. The
writer now skips an identical complete comment body. Nine affected cases
passed, covering repeated maintenance, resumption, stopped work, final
assessment preservation, and main-comment reuse.
- Safety cases cover lost receipts, legacy adoption, newer progress,
published assessments, provider-verified mention aliases, and old
replies that must not complete new requests.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, map validation, and module
boundaries passed. The server TypeScript check passed after the final
repair. The broader local GitHub workflow and policy run passed 188
tests. Full CI passed on the final commit
(`554979d79285b68bcbf90cd639e3d2d053f4ea4b`), including all three chat
shards, server/workspace/Runner suites, typecheck, build, and E2E gates.
Greptile is 5/5 with no open review findings. One serialized job
received a runner shutdown signal mid-test; its single retry passed.
- Preserved failure evidence: the first CI run exposed an overbroad
recipient filter and an old queued-text assertion. The next commit
passed all three CI chat shards. Greptile then found the receipt
transitions covered by the new regressions above. Local full-suite runs
were stopped when those defects required source changes; no clean full
local pass is claimed.
- Tests use real PostgreSQL and controlled provider responses. They do
not establish a live GitHub App rollout. The original instance needs the
fixed server before its comments change.

## Risks

- Leading mentions now select a recipient even when that account has no
Paperclip connection. A leading human mention also selects that person.
Mid-message incidental mentions retain normal subscription behavior.
- Existing comment adoption edits only comments proven by this
endpoint's request ledger or prior summary marker and App identity.
Deleted and replaced comments remain protected.
- Failure cleanup uses current authority and does not replace newer
progress or unresolved provider writes. It does not restart failed
execution.
- No schema migration is required.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context-window size
are not exposed in this session. The model used reasoning, tools, code
execution, and browser inspection.

## 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>
2026-10-19 21:51:20 -05:00
..

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.

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.

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, followed by one H2 backticked ID per product sub-feature. Each capability contains these fields:

  • Review: baseline or operation-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 none only 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.

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. Do not register entries or 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.