Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 40ea7a9b89 fix(heartbeat): wait for inherited remote workspace writers (#18691)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work.
> - A child task can inherit its parent's remote workspace.
> - The remote workspace permits one writer until that writer saves its
files.
> - Reservation reports an active writer as a generic setup failure.
> - The existing shared workspace wait does not cover inherited isolated
workspaces or a race at reservation.
> - This pull request sends verified active writer contention through
the existing scheduled retry path.
> - The child keeps a live execution path while unfinished files remain
protected.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A native sandbox task inherited an isolated remote workspace from its
running parent. Setup failed with `The workspace still has an unfinished
writer or save operation.` The child became blocked before provider
execution and had no scheduled continuation after the parent saved.

**Expected behavior**

The child waits for the active writer through the existing workspace
retry path. It keeps its workspace binding. A stale writer or a stopped
writer with unfinished saves still requires reconciliation.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Start a native sandbox task with remote workspace storage.
2. Create a child that inherits its isolated workspace or operator
branch while the parent is still writing.
3. Start the child. On the old code, atomic reservation raises a generic
setup failure.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Observed on `410b0e27015495ab8951768b5b0b94727de33785`. Regression
reproduced on source based on
`554a770c6f8e48e327e19f5208b575a5ec5bce30`.

**Deployment mode**

Authenticated managed server, external PostgreSQL, native Codex with a
Daytona sandbox. The failed attempt stopped before runtime selection or
provider startup.

Related: #18611 permits inherited remote bindings. #16371 adds waits for
reused shared execution workspaces. This repair handles active writer
contention at atomic remote reservation. #17156 proposes a separate
change to task workspace inheritance.

## What Changed

- Return a typed conflict with the exact active writer from the remote
reservation owner. Keep company, binding, access, and writer checks in
that transaction.
- Translate a recent running writer into the existing heartbeat
workspace wait. Keep stale, unknown, stopped, dirty, and uncertain save
fences. The writer task lookup uses its primary key.
- Preserve the admitted assignee role across preparation so reassignment
cannot turn an old owner into a guest retry.
- Add PostgreSQL regressions for isolated workspaces, operator branches,
native writer identity, unchanged saved authority, admission after save,
durable retry, Stop, and reassignment before contention reaches the wait
handler.
- Update the development guide and workspace verification recipes.

## Verification

- Red: both inherited isolated/operator preparation cases fail on the
old code. They receive `HttpError(remote_workspace_writer_pending)`
instead of a workspace wait. No provider or allocation starts.
- Green: those same cases pass after the repair. The assembled public
heartbeat cases also pass: one scheduled retry owns the task lock, no
sandbox lease is created, the original writer and saved authority remain
unchanged, and Stop prevents retry promotion.
- Ownership race red/green: changing the assignee during preparation
produced `wasIssueAssignee: false` before the review fix. The same
regression now preserves its original role. A real transaction fault
boundary also reassigns the task after reservation rejects it and before
the wait handler runs; promotion cancels that retry with
`issue_reassigned`.
- Test isolation: an initial combined placement cached the synthetic S3
run-log backend and failed twelve later preparation cases. The assembled
native tests now have their own process. The ordered reproduction and
all four complete affected suites pass after that change: 171 tests,
zero skipped.
- Four additional saved-file lifecycle cases pass against disposable
Docker PostgreSQL 17 with independent filesystem execution and local
object storage. They restore inherited shared, isolated, and
operator-branch files on a new allocation and retain the second-writer
fence. The other 42 cases in that file were outside the selection.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and
`git diff --check` pass on the final source.
- The earlier `pnpm test:run` passed all six chat shards: 1,828 tests.
Its remaining general-server phase was interrupted after final-head CI
passed. That local command began before the review fix and is not a
complete local full-suite pass.
- Final head `096235d8fc80033f92d8de1fcfa9835795ba0456`: 54 successful
checks/statuses, three skipped checks, and two neutral checks. None is
pending or failed. All build, typecheck, general/serialized tests,
Runner checks, and eight browser E2E shards pass in
[CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41544310900).
The PR is mergeable with no conflicts.
- Greptile is 5/5 on that exact head. Its ownership finding is resolved
and no review thread remains open. Paperclip Review also reports 5/5
with no findings; its check conclusion is neutral. Its earlier
status-conflict recovery completed through the ordinary review request
path.
- Local environment: macOS arm64, Node 26.4.0, pnpm 9.15.4, isolated
native PostgreSQL and the disposable PostgreSQL 17 lifecycle fixture.
The acquisition boundary is controlled in the focused preparation cases.
No live Codex/Daytona replay is claimed: the local environment and test
configuration lack the required test credentials.
- No deployment, merge, or original task recovery is claimed.

## Risks

- Incorrect contention classification could retry a stopped or
unverified writer. Only a running writer with a same-company task and
recent activity enters the wait path. Stale and terminal dirty cases
retain the conflict.
- Retries must not start another executor or release unsaved files.
Reservation remains atomic. The tests check unchanged writer authority,
no allocation before release, one durable retry, retained binding, Stop,
and reassignment before the conflict is caught.
- No API schema, database migration, provider configuration, model,
credential, trust, or approval changes.

## Model Used

- OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex. The context window size is not
exposed in this session. Used reasoning, tool use, code execution, and
browser diagnostics. No sub-agents were used.

## 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 — targeted and chat results
are recorded above; the full local command was interrupted
- [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>
2026-11-02 19:26:59 -06:00
..

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.

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: 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. 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.