DottaandPaperclip
7d9b93aee2
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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>
7.7 KiB
Questions and approvals — agent access
Product map: Questions and approvals.
Review date: 2026-10-12. Source commit: f981fa3cc10cb8663a87dec60345fbff46d54d0a.
This is a source-reviewed baseline of representative operations and known gaps. Each capability needs operation-level review before its entire scope can be qualified. No live agent execution is claimed. Follow the map contract for format, permission checks, evidence and maintenance.
questions
Review: baseline.
API: present — representative operation IDs:
POST /api/issues/{id}/interactions.POST /api/issues/{id}/interactions/{interactionId}/respond.
Agent access: partial — Native request_human_input; REST / MCP forms; authorized
responder endpoint.
Policy: Current task/run and named audience/resolver policy; governed approval decisions require board independently of an ordinary interaction.
Evidence: source-only — implementation at
the reviewed commit above.
Verification: not-run — exercise a listed permitted operation with actual agent
credentials/run context; inspect its result and applicable persistence/attribution.
Assert the relevant denied actor, owner, company or mode from Policy. Review the
remaining operations before qualifying the whole capability.
Gaps: Agent creates questions. It cannot fabricate a human answer; answering follows resolver policy.
dismiss-and-reopen
Review: baseline.
API: present — representative operation IDs:
GET /api/issues/{id}/interactions.
Agent access: partial — Persisted question API plus browser card state.
Policy: Current task/run and named audience/resolver policy; governed approval decisions require board independently of an ordinary interaction.
Evidence: source-only — implementation at
the reviewed commit above.
Verification: not-run — use the product recipe for the local/developer surface. Verify
listed shared-resource reads separately; local presentation alone is not agent API
evidence.
Gaps: Presentation dismissal/reopening does not resolve the question and does not require a new mutation API.
confirmations
Review: baseline.
API: present — representative operation IDs:
POST /api/issues/{id}/interactions.POST /api/issues/{id}/interactions/{interactionId}/resolve-from-comment.
Agent access: partial — Native request_human_input and call_api resolve-from-comment;
authorized REST resolver.
Policy: Current task/run and named audience/resolver policy; governed approval decisions require board independently of an ordinary interaction.
Evidence: source-only — implementation at
the reviewed commit above.
Verification: not-run — exercise a listed permitted operation with actual agent
credentials/run context; inspect its result and applicable persistence/attribution.
Assert the relevant denied actor, owner, company or mode from Policy. Review the
remaining operations before qualifying the whole capability.
Gaps: Conversational confirmation is supported under resolver policy; generic acceptance/response controls remain restricted.
plan-review
Review: baseline.
API: present — representative operation IDs:
PUT /api/issues/{id}/documents/{key}.POST /api/issues/{id}/interactions.
Agent access: partial — Native write_document/request_human_input; explicit review
recipient.
Policy: Current task/run and named audience/resolver policy; governed approval decisions require board independently of an ordinary interaction.
Evidence: source-only — implementation at
the reviewed commit above.
Verification: not-run — exercise a listed permitted operation with actual agent
credentials/run context; inspect its result and applicable persistence/attribution.
Assert the relevant denied actor, owner, company or mode from Policy. Review the
remaining operations before qualifying the whole capability.
Gaps: Plan revision and confirmation work. Accepting as a human is not a generic agent capability.
audience
Review: baseline.
API: present — representative operation IDs:
GET /api/issues/{id}/interactions.
Agent access: available — API resolver checks; assigned review context/resolve_review
for a native review run.
Policy: Current task/run and named audience/resolver policy; governed approval decisions require board independently of an ordinary interaction.
Evidence: source-only — implementation at
the reviewed commit above.
Verification: not-run — exercise a listed permitted operation with actual agent
credentials/run context; inspect its result and applicable persistence/attribution.
Assert the relevant denied actor, owner, company or mode from Policy. Review the
remaining operations before qualifying the whole capability.
Gaps: Audience is a permission boundary to test, not an endpoint that creates new authority.
governance
Review: baseline.
API: present — representative operation IDs:
POST /api/companies/{companyId}/approvals.POST /api/approvals/{id}/approve.POST /api/approvals/{id}/reject.
Agent access: restricted — Agent REST/MCP can request/read/comment/resubmit; formal
approve/reject require board.
Policy: Current task/run and named audience/resolver policy; governed approval decisions require board independently of an ordinary interaction.
Evidence: source-only — implementation at
the reviewed commit above.
Verification: not-run — assert the documented agent denial with an owned test fixture;
verify any listed agent request/result path separately. A delegated operation needs its
own policy and access review.
Gaps: Scenario decide_approval does not establish a production agent approval path. Preserve explicit approver authority.
tool-review
Review: baseline.
API: present — representative operation IDs:
POST /api/tool-gateway/action-requests/{id}/approve.POST /api/tool-gateway/action-requests/{id}/decline.
Agent access: restricted — Agent invokes assigned ask-policy tool; board approval
executes stored request.
Policy: Current task/run and named audience/resolver policy; governed approval decisions require board independently of an ordinary interaction.
Evidence: source-only — implementation at
the reviewed commit above.
Verification: not-run — assert the documented agent denial with an owned test fixture;
verify any listed agent request/result path separately. A delegated operation needs its
own policy and access review.
Gaps: The request/continuation path exists. Agent cannot grant itself once/always-allow scope via generic API.
continuation
Review: baseline.
API: present — representative operation IDs:
GET /api/issues/{id}/interactions.GET /api/heartbeat-runs/{runId}.
Agent access: available — Server delivery and resumed assigned agent context.
Policy: Current task/run and named audience/resolver policy; governed approval decisions require board independently of an ordinary interaction.
Evidence: source-only — implementation at
the reviewed commit above.
Verification: not-run — exercise a listed permitted operation with actual agent
credentials/run context; inspect its result and applicable persistence/attribution.
Assert the relevant denied actor, owner, company or mode from Policy. Review the
remaining operations before qualifying the whole capability.
Gaps: Continuation is server-owned; prove exactly one wake/no duplicate action after resolution with existing integration fixtures.