cf1def0ca6
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - The inbox collects decisions, requests, and updates for the people in a company. > - People need a clear personal queue and a consistent way to answer each request. > - Repeated headings, inconsistent card actions, and separate review flows make that work harder. > - This pull request connects the inbox UI to the routing foundation in #20959. > - Compact cards use shared task controls and open supporting work in a side panel. > - People can answer, claim, transfer, archive, and inspect outcomes from one place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The inbox cards, personal views, shared task controls, and decision history. **Subsystem affected** UI. This PR targets master and uses the routing foundation merged in #20959. **Current behavior** The inbox repeats headings and counts. Cards have different layouts and action placement. The requester can repeat the signed-in person's name. Review and question controls differ between the inbox and task thread. **Proposed behavior** Open Assigned to you by default. Show one count line above the cards. Use a compact card layout with consistent actions and supporting details. Show the requester's avatar and name only when they differ from the signed-in person. Share question controls, including a radio option for Other that reveals a text field when selected. **Reason and benefit** People can scan their queue and complete requests without losing the surrounding task or creating separate drafts for the same review. **Breaking changes** The default inbox view becomes personal. The all-assignee and shared views remain available. Card close menus distinguish personal archive and snooze from shared withdrawal. **Additional context** Refs #20959, #19363, and #19520. Refs #20268 for related actionable-request work. This stack adds personal routing and shared controls. ROADMAP.md includes Multiple Human Users and Agent Reviews and Approvals. ## What Changed - Add personal, unassigned, company, all-assignee, and archived inbox views. Add claim, transfer, personal close actions, receipts, and history controls. - Use compact decision cards with a single count line, one-pixel borders, and equal space above, below, and to the right of each primary action. - Open artifacts and synchronized confirmation/approval controls in a shared side panel. Share their revision drafts and action state with the task thread. Other requests keep one editable form on the inbox card while reviewing an artifact. - Make Other match the question options and reveal its field only when selected. Apply this to inbox and task question cards. - Hide self-requester labels, space agent avatars, and use the standard canceled status icon for withdrawn requests. - Use connector logos in connector cards. Keep the connector promotion background and sidebar border continuous. - Add company and project decision-owner controls and document the updated inbox behavior. ## Verification - The complete [GitHub Actions CI matrix](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/43141559641) passes on `8d81a75e49b518fff6b6ff4c23dd67979b0b97ee` (Linux/Node 24: typecheck, build, general and serialized tests, Runner support, browser shards, and aggregate gates). Greptile is 5/5 on that exact head with zero open findings, and the security scan passes. - Local UI typechecking passes. Eight focused suites pass 382 tests: 236 inbox/review/question/connector tests plus all 146 composer tests. Regressions passed red to green for attachment links, prompt rendering, single-form artifact review, connector scope copy, accessible headings, and the composer test harness's missing theme provider. The final commit changes only that test harness; production code is unchanged from `59d015833f`. - Browser acceptance on the production implementation confirms preserved selected answers with one editable question form, accessible Markdown prompts, inert image references, accurate connector scope copy, native PDF downloads, image sidebar previews, and Open file requesting the attachment endpoint while preserving the inbox URL. Request reads and file responses were intercepted; no question answers were written. The preview is healthy on the final head. - Visual and interaction checks cover Other radio behavior in both themes and on mobile, the loaded Google Calendar logo, and 20px above, below, and to the right of the primary action across all 23 visible cards. The affected desktop/mobile navigation and sidebar specs pass locally and in the final CI browser matrix. - Real-editor browser checks confirm Ctrl/Cmd+Enter cannot bypass another person's confirmation. Cancel preserves the draft and unlocks silently; Continue submits once. Approval write failures remain visible. - `pnpm verify` returns exit 2 because DESIGN.md requires broader coverage; the final full CI matrix supplies every requested gate. Maps and Storybook catalog structural checks pass. The routing foundation #20959 merged after passing 249 database tests, server typechecking, full CI, Greptile 5/5, and security scanning. Its backend and SDK registry are preserved. - Demo data is retained for testing; database suites and browser specs use separate disposable databases. ## Risks - The inbox uses the routing contracts merged in #20959. Personal filters and history affect shared task entry points; the affected controls are included in local regression coverage and full CI. - Personal defaults and close-menu wording change inbox behavior. Existing resolver permissions still control shared actions. - Shared revision state and live invalidation affect two surfaces. Focused tests cover draft synchronization, action locks, and incoming updates. - Visual changes use the existing design tokens and component primitives. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used repository tools, code execution, and browser checks. This session does not expose a more specific runtime model ID or its context-window size. ## 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 described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run focused 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 - [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: Scott Tong <scott@scottsmbpm5max.lan> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Paperclip agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
The chat scenario catalog uses these same IDs for human requests and expected outcomes. Its scenarios retain the access boundaries here; neither a CEO role nor a planned scenario grants board authority or establishes a working production tool binding.
Use full capability IDs when referring to access contracts outside their file:
onboarding/company means the company capability in onboarding.md in both maps.
The feature index lists feature and
capability IDs; IDs and references
explains entry-point references and stable naming.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api is enabled by default, but explicit server,
company-allowlist and binding settings can narrow admission. It requires a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Connection-management reads support Standard, Ask and Plan; mutations require
Standard. Skill-test runs and nonstandard task-bridge keys cannot administer
connections. These gates supplement each operation's grants, resolved resource
and target scope, and responsible-user authority. See the
rollout policy
and connection authorization.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.