Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 4145b5048a docs: deepen task, approval, secret, and recovery maps (#16994)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Its feature map describes user journeys. Its access map describes
the matching agent paths.
> - The recent index and capability additions improved discovery and
breadth.
> - Broad baseline records still combined operations with different
actors, permissions, and retry behavior.
> - This pull request reviews the existing task, approval, secret, and
recovery capabilities at operation level.
> - Each operation now has its own access boundary, source evidence, and
verification recipe. Source review remains separate from live proof.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #16987, #16990, #16025. These related pull requests are merged.
The search found no open duplicate or matching issue.

**Issue type**

Missing documentation.

**Where is the issue?**

The paired task, questions-and-approvals, secrets, and recovery files
under `maps/feature-map/` and `maps/agent-access-map/`.

**What's wrong?**

Baseline records do not show enough detail to verify who can perform
each action, which state must persist, or what happens after a denial,
race, or retry. A declared scenario tool can also be mistaken for an
admitted production tool.

**Suggested fix**

Split the four areas into source-reviewed operation records. Add compact
checkpoints to their user recipes. Preserve existing capability IDs and
the map schema.

## What Changed

- Promote 27 existing capability records to `operation-reviewed`, with
125 operation records: tasks 32, questions and approvals 39, secrets 28,
recovery 26.
- Give each operation its own API, agent surface, policy, source
evidence, verification recipe, and remaining gap.
- Separate human, legacy agent, run JWT, native binding, mode, and
resource authority. Split operations where those rules differ.
- Correct production completion paths, plan acceptance and handoff,
question dismissal and withdrawal, secret proposal authority, runtime
recovery grants, and explicit duplicate-risk decisions.
- Preserve access gaps found in source, including the binding-proposal
dependency cascade and narrower native/CLI fields.
- Add one checkpoint table per product recipe for saved results, denial,
races, and retries.
- Keep all 191 existing capability IDs. Change only eight Markdown
files. Keep every operation's evidence `source-only` and verification
`not-run`; the subset below does not prove an entire operation across
its actors and surfaces.

## Verification

Source review uses revision `3bbc2104b65caf9f7763938a01260a5673e12f7a`.
Read-only area reviews and a second source review covered the changed
pairs.

Passed:

- `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas, 191 capability IDs,
valid references and fields. This is structural verification.
- `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs
scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 17 passed.
- `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs`: 308 files, 2,899 stories.
Generated outputs remain ignored.
- Capability comparison with the base: all 191 IDs unchanged; the four
reviewed areas contain 27 capabilities and 125 source-only operation
records.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`.
- `git diff --check`.
- Focused existing interaction and proposal route tests: 80 passed. The
two selected DB-backed suites skipped 119 tests because local embedded
PostgreSQL could not start. These skipped tests are not passes.

Live subset on a fresh local instance with a disposable PostgreSQL
container:

- Created the company and an unassigned task through the browser. Added
a comment and completed the task. The saved status and comment survived
reload.
- Created a managed secret with inert dummy data through the browser.
Its metadata and version survived reload. The metadata response did not
contain the dummy value.
- Created a question fixture through board REST. Invalid input returned
422 and left it pending. Browser dismissal kept it pending and preserved
the draft. Reopening restored the choice. Submission survived reload. A
duplicate response returned 409 and left the saved answer unchanged.
- Used a real issued legacy agent API key. Task read and safe
company-secret catalog returned 200. Full secret listing and run-only
secret list/value routes returned 403. Revoked the key after the checks.
- Read an empty recovery projection. Resolving a nonexistent action
returned 404 and left the task unchanged. This did not execute recovery.
- Closed the owned browser tab and stopped only the verified test
runtime and labelled database container. Evidence survived cleanup. No
provider or model ran.

Limits and retained failures:

- Native embedded PostgreSQL launch failed because the host could not
allocate semaphores. The container-backed app was the successful
alternate environment.
- Full `pnpm test:run` was attempted. Fifteen DB-dependent
native-session cases failed at database startup, and several DB suites
skipped. The run was stopped after repeated failures of that
prerequisite. The full local suite did not pass.
- The sandboxed build attempt failed at the local tsx IPC socket. The
required build passed outside the sandbox.
- The first CI build job passed compilation and production boot, then
its npm-install check was interrupted when the runner received a
shutdown signal. The corrected head passed the full CI run, including
the build and public-install checks.
- Initial Greptile review found the recovery note field and native
search/history limits were inaccurate. Corrected `resolutionNote` and
the production cap of 100, then reran the map checks. Greptile reviewed
the corrected head at 5/5; both earlier threads are resolved.
- An initial harness used a nonexistent generic secret-value URL and
received 404. The actual mapped agent routes were then checked
separately. An initial recovery assertion expected 409; the actual
missing-action contract returned 404. These were harness corrections,
not product fixes.
- Native run bindings, two-person ownership, secret delivery/rotation,
external vaults, provider-stop proof, workspace repair, and actual
recovery execution remain unexecuted. The map does not claim those
journeys passed.

The separate external **Paperclip Review** check is still in progress on
`904509df80cc6de16d36906a410a66786f619b20`. The reviewer reports that
its full changed-file request is pending. CI is green and Greptile is
5/5, but this external review has not published a final assessment. Its
review service must finish that request and assessment.

## Risks

Documentation can become stale as policy and runtime bindings change.
Each operation cites source and retains its verification gaps. The
records describe observed enforcement; they do not authorize broader
access or certify live behavior. This pull request changes no product
code, schema, or permission enforcement.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`; 475,000-token context window; xhigh
reasoning; tool use and code execution. Read-only source agents assisted
the area reviews.

## 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 map and route
checks; full-suite host blocker recorded above)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (existing map
regression tests cover this documentation-only change)
- [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>
2026-10-20 13:59:25 -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.

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.