Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 46de15ff4b fix(recovery): preserve native workspaces after control deadlines (#17788)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip lets people manage agents and their saved work.
> - Native runs can prepare a remote workspace before provider
execution.
> - A finalization deadline can stop a run outside its normal exception
path.
> - That handler marked the run failed without recording its prepared
files for recovery.
> - Retry then waited for a lease whose preservation had no durable
owner.
> - This pull request records the exact source in the deadline
transaction through the existing recovery service.
> - Existing containment and file recovery can then settle the source
before another executor starts.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A native run failed at its control deadline with a prepared workspace
and no accepted result. Its environment lease remained active. The run
had no workspace preservation record. A saved Retry waited for remote
cleanup without a preservation operation to finish that cleanup.

**Expected behavior**

Record unfinished files when the deadline marks a native run failed. Use
the existing stop-and-retain worker. Keep accepted results, exact source
binding, and current task ownership authoritative.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Persist a native run with a prepared workspace, an active lease, and
an expired control deadline.
2. Reconcile the deadline twice.
3. Inspect the source lease and the run's workspace recovery record.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Reproduced against `a67a18c171816b097f46eae78fc58c7e55c9c565`.

**Deployment mode**

Hosted native Runner with a remote sandbox. The regression uses real
local PostgreSQL and no provider mocks.

Related: Refs #17741 for committed Retry delivery. Refs #17073 for
remote process-exit verification. This change records file preservation
after a deadline; it does not change either policy.

## What Changed

- Call the existing native workspace preservation service in the
transaction that fails an abandoned run.
- Preserve files after reassignment without changing the current task
owner or state.
- Add real-database cases for prepared, finalized, mismatched,
reassigned, and accepted-result states. Repeated reconciliation retains
one source obligation and creates no successor.
- Document the deadline behavior and its existing access boundaries.

## Verification

- Red: on unchanged production code, the prepared-workspace case failed
because its recovery record was null. Finalized and mismatched controls
passed.
- Green: all 10 deadline reconciliation tests pass. The existing native
workspace recovery suite passes all 48 cases.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm build` passed.
- Map checks, module-boundary checks, and `git diff --check` passed.
- Current-head CI passes on `23bf2aa4b50d2c4b74a9ee2ee47034ae542d25c2`:
all GitHub Actions CI lanes, including grouped/serialized tests, Runner
verification, typecheck, build, E2E, and Canary Dry Run, succeeded. Two
Storybook-only checks were skipped. Greptile is 5/5 with no findings.
Superagent Security Scan also passed. Entire Gates reports passing
checks/findings and fails only because no reviewer has approved trail
#10.
- The first server shard 11/12 attempt passed all 1,750 assertions but
reported an unhandled early process-exit rejection in the unchanged
workspace-exposure fixture. Its focused local suite passed (28 passed, 3
skipped); one CI rerun passed.
- Full local `pnpm test:run` was started, then interrupted after the
complete CI lanes passed to avoid duplicate work. No full local suite
pass is claimed. Local targeted tests, typecheck, and build passed.
- On the affected staging instance, the existing deployed preservation
helper registered the exact failed source. Normal Retry then drove
actual sandbox stop, file recovery, and a persisted successful recovery
receipt. A successor reached a separate remote process-fingerprint
failure before provider execution. The automatic deadline change is not
deployed; task execution recovery remains incomplete.
- Initial local setup attempts did not reach product assertions: skipped
dependency lifecycle scripts left native PostgreSQL library links
absent, and the restricted shell blocked localhost binding. The
package's link hydration and an authorized isolated listener resolved
those setup prerequisites. One new negative-control assertion also
required null-safe access; the final red run retained only the intended
behavioral failure.

## Risks

- File preservation must not certify provider termination. The existing
stop receipt, source binding, copyback, and admission checks remain in
force.
- Preservation failure rolls back the deadline transaction, leaving its
durable deadline eligible for another bounded attempt.
- Reassignment preserves old files without changing the new owner's
task. Accepted results retain their current finalizer.
- No schema, credential, provider, or polling change. Historical failed
runs still require scoped recovery; this patch does not replay them.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code
execution, and browser tools. The exact serving 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 (targeted suites; full
local suite interrupted after CI passed)
- [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
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (CI lanes pass; external Entire
reviewer-approval gate remains pending)
- [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>
2026-10-26 14:18:53 -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.