83e13db8fa
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The personal inbox uses issue activity to identify a person's participation. > - Issue reads can cancel stale recovery actions and record that cleanup as the reader's action. > - This adds unrelated tasks to the inbox and refreshes their activity timestamps. > - A workspace owner hold can also alternate between creation and cancellation after a task finishes. > - This pull request corrects cleanup attribution, excludes historical read cleanup, and retains one exact owner hold. > - Agents can read authorized issue activity to diagnose the same problem themselves. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15742 excludes logs by the execution-recovery actor from activity timestamps. This PR covers reader-attributed stale recovery cleanup, personal inbox participation, exact workspace owner holds, and sandbox issue activity access. I searched open issues and PRs for recovery inbox and activity bridge fixes. I found no duplicate for this defect. **What happened?** Loading issue lists cancels stale recovery actions under the reader's identity. The personal inbox treats those rows as user participation. One completed issue had hundreds of such rows and no edits or comments by the affected reader. A retained native workspace owner repeatedly creates a verification action that read projections then cancel. Sandbox agents cannot inspect the issue activity because the reverse bridge rejects the route. **Expected behavior** Automatic cleanup belongs to the system and does not add an issue to a reader's inbox. Historical cleanup rows remain auditable but do not count as participation or recent activity. An unresolved physical workspace owner keeps one stable verification action. Agents can inspect activity only for issues their identity may read. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Finish a task whose native run retains an unverifiable workspace owner receipt. 2. Repeat workspace recovery checks and GET requests for issue detail, compact lists, and recovery actions. 3. Observe new recovery action IDs and reader-attributed cancellations in the activity history. 4. Query the personal inbox for that reader and observe the unrelated task. 5. From a sandbox agent, request GET /api/issues/:id/activity and observe Route not allowed. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed atf5346c05b9. Regression tests use current master behavior. **Deployment mode** Authenticated hosted instance with native and legacy sandbox agents. The inbox defect is independent of the adapter. ## What Changed - Attribute automatic stale recovery cleanup to the recovery system actor. - Exclude exact historical read cleanup rows from personal inbox membership, unread counts, and both activity timestamp queries. Keep all audit rows and explicit user recovery decisions. - Retain owner verification holds only while the exact company, run, issue, and owner fingerprint still match. Apply the same rule to reads and background recovery. - Make repeated checks for the same owner hold leave its identity, attempts, and timestamps unchanged. Keep physical takeover blocked. - Allow GET issue activity through the sandbox bridge. Keep the existing company and issue-read authorization and reject broader audit routes. - Add regressions and update the runtime API and recovery documentation. Refresh generated source references for the documentation edits. Update the paired activity, inbox, and recovery maps. ## Verification - Focused Vitest verification: 315 tests pass across five files. The updated terminal owner hold regression also passes. The files cover issue service, recovery routes, activity authorization, sandbox callback bridge, and native workspace finalization. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass locally. The full general and serialized unit test matrix passes in CI on the latest commit. The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after about 30 minutes once that full CI coverage passed; it did not report a local full-suite pass. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes for all paired areas and capability IDs. - Apex is 5/5 on commit44c3787888. Its access map finding is fixed and resolved. All CI checks are green on this commit. - The new regression repeats reads and background sweeps for done and cancelled tasks. It checks one unchanged hold, zero physical copyback, zero personal inbox participation, and system cleanup after the exact receipt is cleared. - Historical cleanup tests preserve explicit recovery decisions, nullable metadata, unread counts, and the original audit rows. - Authorization tests permit an authorized agent and reject cross-company or issue-boundary reads. Bridge tests reject write methods, extra path segments, and company-wide audit routes. ## Risks Existing inbox items can disappear if their only participation evidence was automatic read cleanup. No data migration or audit deletion is needed. An unresolved workspace owner remains visible after task completion; this preserves the physical writer fence. A stale or cleared owner does not retain the hold. Issue activity access expands only the sandbox transport allowlist and still uses existing controller authorization. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, and test tools. The session identifies the model family as GPT-6. A more specific runtime model ID and context window size are not exposed. ## 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 - [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> Co-authored-by: Amy (Opus) <noreply@anthropic.com>
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.
Features
The map is organized by user capability, not by source file. It covers 35 feature families across the product, CLI, and operator workflows, checked against source on 2026-10-12. Experimental and developer-only surfaces are labeled explicitly. Each recipe includes sub-features, current entry points, automated evidence, manual verification steps, and gotchas.
Getting started and access
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Onboarding and first work | Instance setup, company wizard, first agent and task. |
| Login, invitations, and access | Sessions, bootstrap, membership, roles, and CLI authorization. |
| Companies and portability | Company switching/settings, archival, package import/export. |
Tasks and conversations
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Task creation and lifecycle | Creation, assignment, lists, properties, comments, and completion. |
| Delegation, dependencies, and signoff | Child work, prerequisites, reviewers, and task-tree controls. |
| Inbox, decisions, and search | Personal triage, decision queues, unread/blocked views, and search. |
| Agent conversations and project handoff | Persistent conversations, discovery, handoff, and gated board chat. |
| Questions and approvals | Question/plan responses, formal approvals, and app-tool review. |
| Steering and queued messages | Follow-ups, queue edits, interruption, and pause/resume. |
| Documents, attachments, and work products | Versioned documents, annotations, files, outputs, and artifact library. |
Agents and reusable capabilities
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Hiring, configuration, and organization | Agent identity, instructions, reporting lines, lifecycle, and built-ins. |
| Runs, harnesses, and model accounts | Adapter/model setup, account validation, transcripts, and run history. |
| Skills and Skill Studio | Discovery, sources, authoring, revisions, tests, and agent policies. |
| Team packages and installation | Catalog preview/install via CLI/API; catalog UI availability called out. |
Projects and execution
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Projects and repositories | Project lifecycle, task context, repository configuration, and defaults. |
| Goals and work alignment | Goal hierarchy, ownership, status, and project/task context. |
| Workspaces, services, and files | Provisioning, task bindings, services/logs, Git/files, and closure. |
| Execution environments | Local, SSH, sandbox providers, target probes, and custom images. |
| Recovery | Stopped work, workspace repair, bounded continuation, and reconnect. |
Apps, channels, and extensions
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Connection setup | Catalog, MCP links, task requests, authentication, and setup resumption. |
| App access and action permissions | Agent grants, off/ask/allowed actions, discovery, tests, and revocation. |
| External chat and email | Provider-specific identity, threads, files, delivery, and endpoint upkeep. |
| Tool gateways and access profiles | Tool exposure, client configuration, tokens, profiles, and activity. |
| Secrets and proposals | Company/user credentials, grants, proposals, and vault import. |
| Plugins | Installation/configuration, contributed pages/tools, and lifecycle. |
Automation and structured work
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Routines, schedules, and triggers | Definitions, variables, scheduled/webhook/manual runs, and history. |
| Pipelines, review queues, and learnings | Experimental stages, automation, items, review, and learning records. |
| Cases | Experimental structured fields, relationships, revisions, and task links. |
| Status cards | Experimental summaries, watched work, refresh history, and settings. |
Oversight and operation
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Costs and budgets | Spend reports, scoped limits, incidents, hard stops, and resumption. |
| Dashboards and audit trails | Company health, live work, activity, runs, routines, and timeline. |
| Navigation, profile, and announcements | Sidebar state, favorites/recents, personal identity, and dismissals. |
| Instance operations | Installation, updates, service health, configuration, and backups. |
| CLI/API and local worktrees | Explicit context, resource commands, outputs, runs, and isolated instances. |
Contributor surfaces
| Feature | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Developer previews and diagnostic labs | Design examples, interaction fixtures, performance checks; not production acceptance. |
These are verification instructions, not a claim that every journey passed a live test. A component test proves its component; a scripted provider proves that fixture integration. Record executed results separately from the map.
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 filename and entry-point ID, 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 UI coverage inventory accounts for every non-test TSX
module under ui/src/pages, including supporting panels, legacy variants, and
labs. Every product area now links to concrete recipes. Partial means the
area still has the named variant or workflow gaps; unmapped is reserved for
an area with no recipe. These statuses describe documentation, not runtime health.
The page inventory is a source snapshot dated 2026-10-05. The map also includes entry points hosted inside other modules (pipeline Review Queue and Learnings, task documents, onboarding), CLI-only operations, and operator work. The team recipe explicitly distinguishes the current CLI/API path from catalog UI components without a current top-level route. Refer to route registration and the CLI registry when changing reachability.
Remaining depth includes complete provider/auth/attachment matrices, every harness/model/environment capability combination, third-party plugin features, and every role/error/mobile/legacy-shell permutation. The recipes name relevant gaps instead of equating source presence with a working user journey. The index can include capabilities that do not add a page file.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically;
coverage.json records documentation scope rather than live test health.
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. Refresh the inventory snapshot when it
helps explain the current product. 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 an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- 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.