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>
4.4 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Secrets and proposals
Operators manage company secret references, users supply their own credentials where required, and reviewers decide proposed secret changes without exposing secret values in ordinary UI evidence.
Feature ID: secrets.
Implementation: secrets page, personal secrets, proposals.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
company-secrets:secrets/company-secrets— create/update secret references and control their bindings.user-secrets:secrets/user-secrets— define required user credentials and set a value for the current user.proposals:secrets/proposals— review proposed changes with the appropriate authority.vault-import:secrets/vault-import— import eligible external-vault references through the offered flow.runtime-delivery:secrets/runtime-delivery— deliver only the secret references authorized for the run/actor. Agent-owned instance secrets stay in the trusted server runtime and are never delivered to an agent.
How to get to it (user POV)
secret-management
Open company Settings → Secrets and the company/personal secret views.
proposal-import
Use the Proposals tab or Import from vault where available.
Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use dummy credentials in an isolated company, two user identities, and a test agent. Never print actual secret values in evidence.
secret-management
Automated: secrets service and user ownership cover storage/access contracts. Instance-secret tests cover local encrypted storage, owner isolation, and exclusion from ordinary bindings.
Manual: Create a dummy secret reference, bind it through a supported field, and verify its use in a harmless run without logging the value. Update it and reload. Switch users and confirm personal values remain owner-scoped and missing credentials produce an actionable state.
proposal-import
Automated: proposal routes and vault import dialog cover route/UI layers; a real vault integration needs live validation.
Manual: Review a dummy proposal, reject one and accept another, then inspect the resulting reference state and history. Preview a vault import, select only disposable entries, and verify imported references and denied-access errors after reload.
Gotchas
-
Vault import currently targets eligible AWS Secrets Manager providers. Organization-secret checks in local-trusted mode do not establish two-user personal-secret ownership or actual external-vault import.
-
A displayed reference name is not proof that the actor can resolve its value at runtime.
-
Company secrets and user-specific values have different ownership.
-
Redaction needs verification in errors, activity, and run logs as well as the form.
Storybook verification
proposals
Capability ID: secrets/proposals.
Scope: ui Storybook: Mount ProposalsTab pending secret/binding proposals, blocked authority, expired/resolved proposal, approval/rejection pending/error, and redacted metadata. Production: GET /companies/{id}/secret-proposals and POST approve/reject must enforce company/admin/target authority, durable resolution and redaction; verified run-bound agent proposal creation is separate. Sources: Source: ProposalsTab.tsx, secrets.ts, secret-proposal-authorization.ts. Tests: ProposalsTab.render.test.tsx, secret-proposals-routes.test.ts
Documentation scope: Secrets and secret proposals
Company/user/proposal/vault and runtime-binding paths are mapped; every secret provider, rotation scenario, and delivery context needs separate validation.