Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 4173059081 fix(inbox): keep advisory GitHub review waits quiet (#17318)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Mine shows a person's participation and requests that need their
response.
> - Automatic GitHub reviews should remain quiet until the assigned work
needs human input.
> - Review bots used completion requests to keep tasks in review while
CI or a PR was still open.
> - Those requests correctly entered Mine, despite the automatic-work
filter from #16356.
> - This pull request gives published reviews an existing provider-event
wait in the in-review state and withdraws superseded completion
requests.
> - Real input requests and separate approval gates keep their current
behavior.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #16356
Refs #13314

An advisory score below 5/5, pending or failed CI, or an unmerged PR
does not by itself require a person's approval in Paperclip. The bot can
track those conditions without adding a completion card to Mine.

## What Changed

- Explain the quiet review lifecycle in the GitHub review instructions.
Use a yielded provider-event wait, or an existing saved monitor, after
publication. Report done when the configured completion conditions are
met.
- Keep a confirmed, published review in `in_review` during that wait.
Reuse existing authorization and monitor delivery. Add no schema, timer,
or polling loop.
- Recognize the committed external wait in review attention and
recovery. Shared execution receives a verified publication flag; GitHub
receipt lookup stays with the GitHub module. Other chat waits keep their
current status.
- Withdraw an older system-created completion request only when the same
bot has published both reviews and its new report has no attention
request. Keep explicit cards, separate approval gates, and requests
without the prior review evidence. Finish validation stays read-only;
withdrawal commits atomically with the new status after checking current
governance, the admitted result, and both low-risk contracts.
- Update the product rule, capability maps, and regression coverage.

## Verification

- Final commit `7c502118eec36028d1b4537bb8797ef893940bf0`: 54 GitHub
checks passed, two intentionally skipped, none pending or failed.
Greptile is 5/5, the security scan passed, and all review threads are
resolved.

- Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Rechecked server
typecheck and build after the final authorization guard.
- Passed: 195 tests across `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts`,
`status-arbiter.test.ts`, `review-instructions.test.ts`, and
`issue-liveness.test.ts`. The database suite used an isolated PostgreSQL
18 container through `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL`.
- Acceptance coverage: 3/5 stays in review outside Mine; 5/5 with
pending completion conditions stays in review; 5/5 with satisfied
conditions finishes quietly; a real repository-access request enters
Mine until resolved. Also covers obsolete-card withdrawal, transaction
rollback, rejected reports, separate approval gates, multiple reviewed
heads, saved monitors, and revoked endpoints, repositories, or
membership.
- Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node
scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, and `git diff --check`.
- The initial acceptance run exposed a missing authenticated user in the
test fixture. Added the user required by the existing addressee
authorization check. All 154 tests in that database suite then passed,
including the final rerun.
- Review found premature withdrawal during validation, stale repository
access, and a missed receipt when a run reviewed multiple heads. The
revision fixes all three and includes acceptance regressions. The
saved-monitor commit guard now accepts the verified published-review
state.
- `pnpm test:run` was attempted but could not complete on this Mac.
Embedded PostgreSQL failed to allocate semaphores (`semget: No space
left on device`); a direct initialization probe confirmed the host
resource limit. The isolated database run proves the affected suite, not
the full repository suite.
- These tests exercise persisted review receipts, finalization, and Mine
queries. They do not prove a live model followed the new instructions or
submit a live GitHub review.

## Risks

- The bot must follow the new lifecycle instructions. A real explicit
attention request still enters Mine.
- Existing obsolete cards are withdrawn when the same bot publishes a
later review and reports no human dependency. This change does not run a
bulk cleanup of historical inbox entries.
- Review attention now recognizes an external response path. It requires
an applied current status decision, a successful bound run, and current
conversation, repository, and principal authorization.
- No migration or UI change. The full local test suite is unverified
because of the host database limit; CI passes on the final commit.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code
editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and
context-window size are not exposed in 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 (195 focused tests;
full-suite limitation 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>
2026-10-23 07:14:40 -07:00
..

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.

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: 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. 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.