DottaandPaperclip
9ef434fe79
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its feature map describes user journeys and their verification paths. > - The map already defines feature IDs and full capability IDs. > - The README and child pages did not show those IDs consistently. > - Readers need those IDs to connect issues, tests, stories, and evidence. > - This pull request adds a recipe index and displays the existing IDs. > - The benefit is clear references across the product and agent access maps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/README.md`, the child recipes, and their agent access companions. **What's wrong?** The README sends readers to Storybook to browse features. Child pages show local keys, such as `installation`, without the full `plugins/installation` ID. Readers must inspect the generator to find the full reference. **Suggested fix** List recipe links and existing IDs in the README. Show each feature ID and full capability ID in its child pages. Explain capability IDs and entry-point references. Keep the current keys and anchors. Related work: Refs #15288. Refs #16052. Refs #15983. No duplicate open PR or issue was found by title search. ## What Changed - Add an index grouped by feature area. It lists every recipe, feature ID, and full capability ID. - Explain how IDs are formed and used in issues, tests, Storybook, and evidence. - Add feature IDs to all product recipes and agent access companions. - Show full capability IDs beside recipe keys and below access and Storybook guidance headings. - Preserve existing keys, heading anchors, and generated ID values. Keep the latest upstream company capability in the index. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes for 34 feature families and 175 capability IDs. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes all 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` passes on this checkout and generates the feature indexes and overview inputs. - `git diff --check` passes. - A source comparison confirms that the README matches the recipe index. After removal of the added ID labels, all 68 child pages match the upstream prose and headings. - Full workspace checks were attempted: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`. They could not start because the local pnpm wrapper could not fetch and verify the pinned pnpm 9.15.4 release. This checkout also has no workspace dependencies installed. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` could not run because `storybook/internal/csf-tools` is not installed. The direct map and index checks above pass without that dependency. - Remote typecheck, release-registry, and full build checks passed. The first attempts of [server shard 3/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758430448) and [server shard 12/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758429932) stopped after their runners received a shutdown signal. The test steps were canceled. GitHub rejects the rerun request with HTTP 403: "The workflow run containing this job is already running". Five other CI jobs remain active. The next action is to rerun the two interrupted shards after workflow 39460473910 ends. No application changes were made to address these runner interruptions. - To inspect the result, open the feature-map README, follow a recipe link, and compare its full capability IDs with its access companion. ## Risks - Low risk. The change updates map documentation only. It changes no application code or ID schema. - The readable README index and child labels repeat source IDs. Keep them aligned when a capability changes. - Generated capability descriptions now include the visible ID prefix. Generated IDs, labels, navigation order, and verification fields remain the same. - Full local workspace checks and catalog generation remain unverified for the environment reasons above. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-6.1-sol`, with a 475,000-token context window and `xhigh` reasoning effort. The model used local file tools, shell commands, and GitHub CLI access. ## 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 - [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>
5.5 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Login, invitations, and access
People and agents enter the correct instance and company with the permissions granted to their identity. Login, membership, resource access, and CLI authorization have separate controls.
Feature ID: access.
Implementation: auth page, company members, invitation.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
login:access/login— sign in or claim the board in the configured deployment mode.invitations:access/invitations— join through a valid invite and handle expired or already-used links.membership:access/membership— review join requests and manage company/instance membership and permissions.resources:access/resources— respect company and resource boundaries on deep links and mutations.cli-auth:access/cli-auth— authorize a CLI session and revoke or replace credentials.
How to get to it (user POV)
login
Open /auth; first-owner bootstrap uses /board-claim/:token when configured.
invite-members
Open /invite/:token; operators manage members in company settings and join requests at /inbox/requests.
Create/revoke human links at Members → Invites
(/company/settings/members?tab=invites). Human invitees receive the chosen
role after sign-in; agent invitations still use join-request approval.
cli-authorization
Start the CLI auth/connect flow and approve its /cli-auth/:id browser page; instance access is under Settings when visible.
Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. For login tests use authenticated mode and two test users; local-trusted mode does not prove session enforcement. Use two companies for isolation checks.
login
Automated: auth UI and session routes cover their respective layers.
Manual: Sign in, reload a company deep link, sign out, and revisit it. Confirm the browser requests authentication rather than showing cached company data. Test an invalid claim separately on disposable state.
invite-members
Automated: member UI and invite replay provide component and route evidence.
Manual: Accept an invite as the intended user, inspect the resulting company and permissions, then reuse and expire disposable invites. Change a member permission, reload as that member, and verify a denied operation on another company remains denied.
cli-authorization
Automated: board auth client and token commands cover the client contracts.
Manual: Authorize the intended CLI context, make a read-only company request, then revoke its token and retry. Verify failure is explicit and does not silently fall back to another identity.
Use auth login, auth whoami, and auth revoke-current with explicit context.
Retry with the same bearer to prove revocation; deleting local credentials with
logout alone does not establish that server revocation succeeded.
Gotchas
- Settings visibility is not authorization; direct requests still need permission checks.
- An agent bearer key must not gain another company’s access.
- Never put invite tokens, session cookies, or API keys in verification evidence.
Storybook verification
login
Capability ID: access/login.
Scope: ui Storybook: Sign-in form, pending and invalid credentials, deployment-mode claim gate, expired claim. Production: Authenticate and reload company deep link; sign out and confirm session enforcement; reject invalid bootstrap claim. Sources: Source: Auth.tsx, BoardClaim.tsx, board-claim.ts. Tests: Auth.test.tsx, auth-session-route.test.ts, board-claim.test.ts
membership
Capability ID: access/membership.
Scope: ui Storybook: Member and join-request lists; editable versus read-only roles; pending change, rejected request, revoked invite. Production: Persist role/membership changes; enforce actual actor authority, invite replay/expiry and cross-company denial. Sources: Source: CompanyAccess.tsx, authz.ts. Tests: CompanyAccess.test.tsx, invite-accept-replay.test.ts, multi-user-authenticated.spec.ts
cli-auth
Capability ID: access/cli-auth.
Scope: ui Storybook: CLI authorization approval, pending, expired/denied and already-authorized states. Production: Authorize intended CLI identity/context, make scoped request, revoke current server token and retry same bearer; logout alone is insufficient. Sources: Source: CliAuth.tsx. Tests: cli-auth-routes.test.ts, board-auth.test.ts, token.test.ts