DottaandPaperclip
cc88b61c09
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to select verification recipes. > - The repository needs separate skills to create a verifier, maintain recipes, and run checks. > - Shared recipes must match current routes, controls, and prerequisites. > - This pull request adds portable verification skills and updates the existing map. > - The benefit is a repeatable verification workflow with clear ownership and evidence limits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15288, which added the existing feature map. The related test cleanup in #15978 changes test ownership; this PR changes skill instructions and recipes. **Issue type** Missing documentation and outdated verification instructions. **Where is the issue?** The project-local skills in `.agents/skills/` and the recipes in `feature-map/`. **What's wrong?** The repository lacks the portable creation and maintenance skills. The verifier mixes live verification with map editing. Some recipes describe old controls or omit required flags, identities, and provider setup. **Suggested fix** Import the skills and their complete references from Paperclip's pstack fork. Keep the existing map in its current directory. Let the verifier read recipes and report drift. Let the maintenance skill update the map. ## What Changed - Add `create-verification-skill` and `maintain-verification-skill` from the portable fork of Poteto's pstack. Include invocation policies, all feature-map examples, self-contained attribution notices and the full MIT license in each skill folder. - Use the existing `feature-map/` directory and Poteto's recipe format. Omit the fork's separate runtime skill and runtime-skill dependencies because Paperclip supplies execution. - Add `verify-paperclip` with executable launch, readiness, onboarding, and cleanup helpers. Use isolated temporary data and separate evidence directories. - Make `verify-paperclip` consume the map and report recipe drift. Give map editing to `maintain-verification-skill`. - Review all 35 feature files and correct 30 recipes. Clarify routes, flags, current controls, persistence scope, and the limits of linked tests. - Remove the unrelated Conference Room flag change from the onboarding smoke helper. - Add a standard-library ownership test. It proves that doctor and stop reject a foreign checkout without stopping its live server. A delayed-exit fixture also proves cleanup waits for runtime exit. - Keep audit screenshots and scratch reports outside the repository. No product code, migrations, lockfile, or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed after rebase: metadata validation for all three skills, Python syntax and executable checks, JavaScript syntax, 35-entry map/index consistency, relative links, license preservation, and `git diff --check`. - Ran one isolated live audit before rebase. Checked task persistence, document upload/download bytes, goal hierarchy, project edits, search, local process Agent Chat, question replies, queued-message discard/stop, and a harmless loopback MCP call. - Checked local settings and draft flows. Synthetic cost events reached a small budget limit and paused the test agent. These checks do not prove external model quality or provider billing. - Checked cleanup of the audit server, database, local MCP fixture, and workspace service inventory. - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Greptile: 5/5 on commit `4344ac4df7`. The cleanup finding is fixed and its review thread is resolved. A fresh review is pending for the notice relocation. - Passed: `python3 -m unittest discover -s .agents/skills/verify-paperclip/tests -v`. Both tests pass: the foreign fixture stayed alive after rejection, and owned cleanup waited for delayed runtime exit. - Passed: `pnpm build`. - All GitHub CI checks were green on commit `4344ac4df7`. The cloud-auth browser shard passed after one retry for a disposed mocked API response. The notice relocation passed skill metadata, relative-link, and license-preservation checks; fresh CI/review is pending. - The full local `pnpm test:run` did not complete. It was interrupted after nearly 30 minutes once the complete CI suite passed on the same commit. Exit code: 130. The new helper safety tests passed locally. The local full-suite checklist item stays unchecked. - Full live coverage is incomplete. Authenticated multi-user checks and external provider journeys need their own identities, credentials, and targets. - The corrected onboarding helper could not be re-tested after removing the flag mutation. Two fresh launches failed before server startup. Direct PostgreSQL initialization reported exhausted shared-memory IDs or limits. The host had free disk space. No host-wide limits or unrelated instances were changed. ## Risks - Recipe drift can return as the UI changes. The map records verification scope, not proof of a passed journey. - The new helpers assume a source checkout with installed dependencies, Python, Node, and `lsof`. The onboarding helper also needs Playwright. - The local audit found observations that need separate investigation: an action test returned fixture data while the connection control showed Off and native profiles existed; a failed status-card setup task left the card showing Setting up. Workspace service start also did not reach a running state. This PR does not change product behavior or redefine those outcomes as success. - The main audit trace did not finalize during browser shutdown. Screenshots, text captures, and iteration results were retained. - Live evidence was captured before rebase. The onboarding helper re-test and full provider/auth qualification remain incomplete. ## 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, read-only source subagents, file edits, shell commands, and browser automation. ## 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 - [ ] 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>
Paperclip feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
Features
The map is organized by user capability, not by source file. It covers 35 feature families across the product, CLI, and operator workflows, checked against source on 2026-10-12. Experimental and developer-only surfaces are labeled explicitly. Each recipe includes sub-features, current entry points, automated evidence, manual verification steps, and gotchas.
Getting started and access
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Onboarding and first work | Instance setup, company wizard, first agent and task. |
| Login, invitations, and access | Sessions, bootstrap, membership, roles, and CLI authorization. |
| Companies and portability | Company switching/settings, archival, package import/export. |
Tasks and conversations
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Task creation and lifecycle | Creation, assignment, lists, properties, comments, and completion. |
| Delegation, dependencies, and signoff | Child work, prerequisites, reviewers, and task-tree controls. |
| Inbox, decisions, and search | Personal triage, decision queues, unread/blocked views, and search. |
| Agent conversations and project handoff | Persistent conversations, discovery, handoff, and gated board chat. |
| Questions and approvals | Question/plan responses, formal approvals, and app-tool review. |
| Steering and queued messages | Follow-ups, queue edits, interruption, and pause/resume. |
| Documents, attachments, and work products | Versioned documents, annotations, files, outputs, and artifact library. |
Agents and reusable capabilities
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Hiring, configuration, and organization | Agent identity, instructions, reporting lines, lifecycle, and built-ins. |
| Runs, harnesses, and model accounts | Adapter/model setup, account validation, transcripts, and run history. |
| Skills and Skill Studio | Discovery, sources, authoring, revisions, tests, and agent policies. |
| Team packages and installation | Catalog preview/install via CLI/API; catalog UI availability called out. |
Projects and execution
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Projects and repositories | Project lifecycle, task context, repository configuration, and defaults. |
| Goals and work alignment | Goal hierarchy, ownership, status, and project/task context. |
| Workspaces, services, and files | Provisioning, task bindings, services/logs, Git/files, and closure. |
| Execution environments | Local, SSH, sandbox providers, target probes, and custom images. |
| Recovery | Stopped work, workspace repair, bounded continuation, and reconnect. |
Apps, channels, and extensions
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Connection setup | Catalog, MCP links, task requests, authentication, and setup resumption. |
| App access and action permissions | Agent grants, off/ask/allowed actions, discovery, tests, and revocation. |
| External chat and email | Provider-specific identity, threads, files, delivery, and endpoint upkeep. |
| Tool gateways and access profiles | Tool exposure, client configuration, tokens, profiles, and activity. |
| Secrets and proposals | Company/user credentials, grants, proposals, and vault import. |
| Plugins | Installation/configuration, contributed pages/tools, and lifecycle. |
Automation and structured work
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Routines, schedules, and triggers | Definitions, variables, scheduled/webhook/manual runs, and history. |
| Pipelines, review queues, and learnings | Experimental stages, automation, items, review, and learning records. |
| Cases | Experimental structured fields, relationships, revisions, and task links. |
| Status cards | Experimental summaries, watched work, refresh history, and settings. |
Oversight and operation
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Costs and budgets | Spend reports, scoped limits, incidents, hard stops, and resumption. |
| Dashboards and audit trails | Company health, live work, activity, runs, routines, and timeline. |
| Navigation, profile, and announcements | Sidebar state, favorites/recents, personal identity, and dismissals. |
| Instance operations | Installation, updates, service health, configuration, and backups. |
| CLI/API and local worktrees | Explicit context, resource commands, outputs, runs, and isolated instances. |
Contributor surfaces
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Developer previews and diagnostic labs | Design examples, interaction fixtures, performance checks; not production acceptance. |
These are verification instructions, not a claim that every journey passed a live test. A component test proves its component; a scripted provider proves that fixture integration. Record executed results separately from the map.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature filename and entry-point ID, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result, command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant, without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The UI coverage inventory accounts for every non-test TSX
module under ui/src/pages, including supporting panels, legacy variants, and
labs. Every product area now links to concrete recipes. Partial means the
area still has the named variant or workflow gaps; unmapped is reserved for
an area with no recipe. These statuses describe documentation, not runtime health.
The page inventory is a source snapshot dated 2026-10-05. The map also includes entry points hosted inside other modules (pipeline Review Queue and Learnings, task documents, onboarding), CLI-only operations, and operator work. The team recipe explicitly distinguishes the current CLI/API path from catalog UI components without a current top-level route. Refer to route registration and the CLI registry when changing reachability.
Remaining depth includes complete provider/auth/attachment matrices, every harness/model/environment capability combination, third-party plugin features, and every role/error/mobile/legacy-shell permutation. The recipes name relevant gaps instead of equating source presence with a working user journey. The index can include capabilities that do not add a page file.
Maintaining the reference
The map is documentation only. It adds no CI checks, automatic journey execution, or required inventory updates for future pull requests.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior and that local references still exist. Refresh the inventory snapshot when it helps explain the current product. Maintenance is optional and review-based.
Each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
New or updated entries follow
Poteto's feature-map examples.
Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when
their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by
Omnigent's feature map.
Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.