DottaandPaperclip
53f480d1b3
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their saved work. > - Product E2E tests must check saved personal files across separate turns. > - The server records file collection in the durable `instruction_save` run-log event. > - The warm test read optional terminal result metadata instead and rejected a recorded successful save. > - This pull request reads the complete event stream for the current run and uses its latest save receipt. > - The prompt now specifies the exact nine bytes required by the temporary-file transfer count. > - Human review actions select the actual interaction card, which can share its interaction ID with a navigation button. > - A later real three-turn run exposed a missing reply after workspace finalization moved to its durable recovery owner. > - Reply recovery handled completed tasks but omitted ordinary tasks that awaited review. > - This pull request also publishes their recorded final reply once while preserving the pending review. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The [retained live continuity attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41477302876/job/125420001074) saved the correct memory file and unchanged 8 MiB binary. Its durable run log contained a successful `instruction_save` receipt. The oracle read `resultJson.instructionSave`, which was absent, and failed before turn two. The temporary file also had a trailing LF. Its prompt allowed that result, while the byte-count check required nine bytes. **Expected behavior** The oracle must use the documented authoritative save event. A missing receipt, a later failed save, incorrect transfer counts, or another run's events must fail. The prompt must specify the bytes that its independent check requires. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run `daytona-warm-continuity.runner-codex.daytona.warm-three-turn` with the configured protected credentials and immutable image. 2. Complete a native turn whose terminal result has no `instructionSave` field. 3. Compare the oracle output with the same run's successful `instruction_save` event. A subsequent [three-turn attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41495337334/job/125451304553) passed every personal-file assertion and reused the same warm process. Its first final reply was recorded as a completed agent-message event but was absent from comments. The log shows `native_workspace_finalization_busy`; the durable recovery path excluded `needs_review` replies. The final message matcher correctly failed. This failure remains recorded. The observed application revision was `aab87ce70744660a4a21c77278b0ede267c04720`. Related work: #14695 and #18494. The retained failed result keeps its original grade and definition. ## What Changed - Read all run-event pages through the existing bounded collector. - Require events to belong to the requested run and select the latest `instruction_save` event. - Retain strict byte counts and reject missing, failed, pending or superseded receipts. - Specify nine ASCII bytes and no trailing newline for the temporary file. - Scope human review actions to the interaction card and its exact interaction ID. - Advance the warm suite definition to version 5 and document its evidence source. - Recover recorded final replies for ordinary native tasks with an accepted `needs_review` result and terminal state. - Preserve pending reviews, existing reply selection, company/turn/digest checks and external governed-response authorization. - Update the task feature and agent access maps. ## Verification - Real PostgreSQL regression: deferred review reply discovery failed before the production repair (expected one candidate; found zero). The final-message event and pending review were present. - Recovery cases cover one publication, no repeated provider run, unchanged review, and rejection of absent/wrong-turn final messages, bad digest and suppressed comments. - Red: seven new boundary regressions failed against the old receipt lookup. - Green: 169 focused oracle, event pagination and catalog checks passed. Product E2E typecheck passed after rebuilding local package declarations. - Retained-evidence replay confirms that the new lookup finds the real successful save event. The original attempt remains failed because its temporary file included an LF. - Recursive typecheck passed before the final recovery change; server typecheck passed afterward. The recovery and control-plane suites passed all 112 tests. Full build and map checks passed. - The broad local test run reached one unrelated 30-second timeout in `attention-retention-work.test.ts` (maintained-review/confirmation batching). The same unchanged case then passed on one targeted retry (39.9 seconds including module load). The original failure remains retained. The broad run also reported one unchanged workspace-conflict case, which passed on its targeted retry (14.85 seconds including module load). Both original failures remain retained. The redundant broad local run was stopped after current-head CI completed all required gates: 55 successful checks and 3 selection skips. No all-green local broad-run claim is made. - The separate artifact-transfer cell already passed on the recorded application revision: independent source and delivered bytes matched at 407,485 bytes, with a completed task, succeeded native run and cleared execution locks. This does not establish a three-turn continuity pass. - [Real native three-turn acceptance](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41499102994/job/125465795210) **passed** at `3b207a42943e9eeb371d4f2d5623de72093eb6d5`, suite definition 5. Turn one exercised `committed_task_response_recovered`. All three completed final replies were persisted once and in order. All three strict personal-file receipts passed. The unchanged 8 MiB binary survived; later transfers copied only 36 and 54 bytes. The lease was created, resumed, and resumed with the same runner PID/start time, runner instance, native session and provider session. Final task was `done`, all three runs succeeded, and checkout/execution locks were null. - The aggregate startup summary has no separate provider-process PID proof. The raw run records independently prove the stable runner process and provider session stated above. This single native cell does not qualify the legacy cell or a full provider matrix. - The passing campaign reused the signed immutable runner image. It required no disk expansion. Earlier campaign image builds used the recorded temporary 120 GiB mitigation; default 60 GiB build capacity remains unqualified. All scoped completed probes were removed and independently returned 404; org CPU/disk usage returned to zero. This does not resolve unknown historical resources under a different credential identity. - Current-head Greptile is 5/5; review-thread pagination is complete with zero threads. All 55 current-head checks are successful; 3 selection checks are skipped. The paid campaign, result enforcement and report publication all completed successfully. ## Risks - Publishing a reply must not approve the work. Recovery only copies the accepted turn’s completed final message. It preserves the pending review and does not start an executor. - Conversation and external governed-response paths retain their existing separate authorization. The latest save event can record failure after an earlier success. The oracle rejects that case. Event pagination, missing receipts and cross-run evidence also fail closed. The exact temporary-file byte count remains required. The review selector still requires the intended interaction ID and enabled action on its actual card. The production change is limited to ordinary internal-task reply recovery. It still requires an accepted result, a matching successful terminal disposition, the completed final message, and existing publication authority. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with shell and code tools. The exact deployment variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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 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 - [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: 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.
The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.
The chat scenario catalog describes how people might request these capabilities in conversation, including setup and permission branches. These are planned Product E2E journeys, not live coverage results.
IDs and references
Use the existing IDs in issues, PRs, Storybook annotations, tests, and verification evidence:
| Reference | Example | Defined by |
|---|---|---|
| Feature ID | onboarding |
The recipe filename without .md. |
| Capability ID | onboarding/company |
The feature ID plus a key from its Sub-features list, separated by /. |
| Entry-point reference | onboarding.md#web-wizard | The recipe filename plus its entry-point heading. The local entry-point ID is web-wizard. |
For example, report verifying onboarding/company through web-wizard.
Capabilities describe behavior; entry points identify the surface used to exercise
it. Entry-point IDs are separate from generated capability IDs. Both maps and
Storybook use the same full capability IDs. Each child page states its feature
ID; recipe bullets show the full capability ID beside the local key, and access
companions show it beneath the local heading. Local keys remain unchanged for
parsing and existing anchors.
Keep recipe filenames, sub-feature keys, and entry-point keys stable when changing display titles or navigation. Renaming a filename or key changes its references. The section headings below are navigation labels, not additional IDs.
Browse features
Use this index to open a recipe or copy its feature and full capability IDs.
Getting started and access
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
onboarding |
Onboarding and first work | onboarding/instance, onboarding/company, onboarding/adapter, onboarding/first-task, onboarding/resume |
access |
Login, invitations, and access | access/login, access/invitations, access/membership, access/resources, access/cli-auth |
companies |
Companies and portability | companies/selection, companies/identity, companies/decision-models, companies/prompt-injection-prevention, companies/fast-responses, companies/agent-observability, companies/archive, companies/portability |
Tasks and conversations
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
tasks |
Task creation and lifecycle | tasks/create, tasks/organize, tasks/properties, tasks/discussion, tasks/completion, tasks/privacy |
task-coordination |
Delegation, dependencies, and signoff | task-coordination/delegation, task-coordination/dependencies, task-coordination/signoff, task-coordination/tree-control |
inbox-search |
Inbox, decisions, and search | inbox-search/views, inbox-search/triage, inbox-search/decisions, inbox-search/search, inbox-search/toasts |
agent-chat |
Agent conversations and project handoff | agent-chat/discovery, agent-chat/history, agent-chat/handoff, agent-chat/conference-room |
questions-and-approvals |
Questions and approvals | questions-and-approvals/questions, questions-and-approvals/dismiss-and-reopen, questions-and-approvals/confirmations, questions-and-approvals/plan-review, questions-and-approvals/audience, questions-and-approvals/governance, questions-and-approvals/tool-review, questions-and-approvals/continuation |
steering |
Steering and queued messages | steering/queue, steering/edit-order-discard, steering/steer, steering/interrupt, steering/stop-and-pause, steering/drafts, steering/approval-queue |
documents-artifacts |
Documents, attachments, and work products | documents-artifacts/documents, documents-artifacts/annotations, documents-artifacts/attachments, documents-artifacts/work-products, documents-artifacts/library |
Agents and reusable capabilities
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
agents |
Hiring, configuration, and organization | agents/hire, agents/grok-bot, agents/instructions, agents/organization, agents/primary-agent, agents/lifecycle, agents/built-in, agents/api-keys, agents/managed-agent-setup |
runs-adapters |
Runs, harnesses, and model accounts | runs-adapters/availability, runs-adapters/validation, runs-adapters/runs, runs-adapters/session |
skills |
Skills and Skill Studio | skills/discovery, skills/authoring, skills/versions, skills/policy, skills/testing |
teams |
Team packages and installation | teams/discovery, teams/preview, teams/install, teams/configuration |
Projects and execution
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
projects |
Projects and repositories | projects/lifecycle, projects/task-context, projects/repositories, projects/defaults, projects/privacy |
goals |
Goals and work alignment | goals/hierarchy, goals/alignment, goals/navigation |
workspaces |
Workspaces, services, and files | workspaces/binding, workspaces/provisioning, workspaces/services, workspaces/files-git, workspaces/closure |
execution-environments |
Execution environments | execution-environments/configuration, execution-environments/capabilities, execution-environments/probe, execution-environments/assignment, execution-environments/images |
recovery |
Recovery | recovery/diagnosis, recovery/bounded-continuation, recovery/source-action, recovery/exhaustion, recovery/workspace, recovery/unknown-outcome, recovery/user-continuation, recovery/reconnect |
Apps, channels, and extensions
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
connection-setup |
Connection setup | connection-setup/catalog, connection-setup/identity-and-access, connection-setup/credentials, connection-setup/handoff, connection-setup/draft-recovery, connection-setup/task-request, connection-setup/channel-setup, connection-setup/failure |
assistant-connections |
Assistant connections (MCP) | assistant-connections/setup, assistant-connections/consent, assistant-connections/device-login, assistant-connections/client-use, assistant-connections/revocation |
app-permissions |
App access and action permissions | app-permissions/agent-access, app-permissions/action-policy, app-permissions/catalog-change, app-permissions/test-action, app-permissions/account-maintenance |
chat-channels |
External chat and email | chat-channels/providers, chat-channels/identity, chat-channels/conversation, chat-channels/attachments, chat-channels/lifecycle, chat-channels/outbound-email |
gateways-profiles |
Tool gateways and access profiles | gateways-profiles/gateway, gateways-profiles/profiles, gateways-profiles/client-connect, gateways-profiles/tokens, gateways-profiles/activity |
secrets |
Secrets and proposals | secrets/company-secrets, secrets/user-secrets, secrets/proposals, secrets/vault-import, secrets/runtime-delivery |
plugins |
Plugins | plugins/installation, plugins/configuration, plugins/contributions, plugins/lifecycle |
Automation and structured work
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
routines |
Routines, schedules, and triggers | routines/definition, routines/triggers, routines/run-now, routines/history, routines/management |
cases |
Cases | cases/browse, cases/structure, cases/history, cases/task-links, cases/handoffs |
status-cards |
Status cards | status-cards/authoring, status-cards/generation, status-cards/inspection, status-cards/archive |
Oversight and operation
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
budgets-costs |
Costs and budgets | budgets-costs/cost-reporting, budgets-costs/budgets, budgets-costs/incidents, budgets-costs/resolution, budgets-costs/subscriptions, budgets-costs/accounting-recovery |
activity |
Dashboards and audit trails | activity/overview, activity/activity, activity/runs, activity/routine-audit, activity/timeline, activity/agent-commentary |
navigation-preferences |
Navigation, profile, and announcements | navigation-preferences/navigation, navigation-preferences/preferences, navigation-preferences/profile, navigation-preferences/announcements, navigation-preferences/fallbacks, navigation-preferences/command-palette |
instance-operations |
Instance operations | instance-operations/install-update, instance-operations/server-service, instance-operations/configuration, instance-operations/diagnostics, instance-operations/backup, instance-operations/runtime-setup |
cli-operations |
CLI/API and local worktrees | cli-operations/context, cli-operations/domain-commands, cli-operations/outputs, cli-operations/run-controls, cli-operations/worktree-instances, cli-operations/feedback-export |
Contributor surfaces
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
developer-labs |
Developer previews and diagnostic labs | developer-labs/design, developer-labs/interaction-labs, developer-labs/performance, developer-labs/route-gates |
Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.
Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in
maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the
Storybook guide. Recipes are discovered automatically from their navigation
metadata; generation does not depend on this high-level index.
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 ID, full capability IDs and
entry-point ID (for example, onboarding/company through web-wizard), plus the
recipe link, 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 generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page
modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module
is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested.
Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations
describe documentation scope, not runtime health.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health. Product E2E reports reuse these capability IDs through the journey associations. Their coverage view shows which scenarios in a campaign are linked to each capability and the associated test results. An association or passing scenario does not certify the whole capability; unselected and unmapped journeys remain distinct.
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. Keep the same-named agent access companion
and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only
access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run
node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks;
follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.
Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:
---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---
The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. Discovery uses the recipe and companion; keep the readable ID index above aligned when features or capability IDs change.
Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas
section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and
has Scope (ui, cli, or browser),
Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions
and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API.
The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.
After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked local keys, full capability IDs, and observable behavior/states,
such as
- `company`: `onboarding/company` — create a company. - 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.