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>
3.6 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Projects and repositories
People group tasks into projects, attach goals and repositories, and configure the context and defaults used by project work.
Feature ID: projects.
Implementation: project list, project detail.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
lifecycle:projects/lifecycle— create, name, organize, and archive projects.task-context:projects/task-context— inspect project tasks and create work in the selected project.repositories:projects/repositories— configure repository/workspace sources and verify usable checkouts.defaults:projects/defaults— maintain project instructions, environment, goal, and budget context where offered.
How to get to it (user POV)
project-list
Open /projects, create a project, and enter its overview or Issues view.
repository-settings
Open /projects/:projectId/configuration and its repository/workspace settings.
Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use a disposable project and a small repository you can access; record checkout and credential ownership.
project-list
Automated: projects UI and project detail are component tests.
Manual: Create a project, add a task from its view, and reload. Verify the task belongs to that project, list counts are plausible, and links preserve company scope. Archive only the disposable project and inspect list/task behavior.
repository-settings
Automated: repository persistence and repository browser suite cover configured repository workflows.
Manual: Attach a small repository, save, and create a project task. Inspect the actual checkout/revision used by its run. Test an invalid repository and missing credentials without treating a saved URL as a working workspace.
Gotchas
-
/overviewnow selects Configuration, not a distinct overview page. Personal join/leave and star controls have their own persistence and should be checked when affected; Star/Unstar {project name} is the visible star action. -
Project name slugs change on rename and have no historical alias lookup. Reopen a renamed project through its stable UUID route, wait for the current Configuration form, and record the newly normalized URL before reloading.
-
Project repository configuration and a provisioned execution workspace are different records.
-
See workspaces, goals, and budgets for those features.
-
Do not assume a deleted or archived project should erase its historical task evidence.
Automatic repository skills
Creating or attaching a GitHub repository enqueues skill import without another setup step. Check Skills → Sources and the installed library afterward. Ordinary edits to older projects do not adopt their repositories; explicit adoption belongs in Sources. Removing a repository retains installed skills and originating project access but stops its automatic tracking. Changing the ref does not retarget existing skill references.
Documentation scope: Projects and execution workspaces
Provider-specific provisioning, multi-repository/submodule edge cases, Git reconciliation variants, and all service exposure combinations require deeper recipes.