## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - First onboarding helps a new user connect the first agent. > - Its provider picker currently includes GitHub Copilot. > - The first setup should offer only Claude and Codex. > - This pull request limits that picker to those two providers. > - Users can still choose other providers when they add more agents. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The model-source picker in first-agent onboarding. **Subsystem affected** `ui/` — the onboarding wizard and its tests. **Current behavior** First onboarding offers GitHub Copilot. It can also expose other providers when their display metadata marks them as recommended. **Proposed behavior** Show only enabled Claude and Codex choices in first onboarding. Keep their automatic native-runner routing on qualified execution environments and the silent legacy fallback on native Windows, with the same provider UI. Keep all supported providers in the later Add Agent flow. Require a visible provider choice when an old draft names a provider that is no longer offered. **Reason and benefit** Keep the first setup focused while preserving provider choice for an existing company. **Breaking changes** Old Copilot or other provider drafts require a new choice in first onboarding. Existing agents, provider APIs, and the Add Agent flow keep their current behavior. **Additional context** Related provider setup work: #15562. This change only narrows the first-onboarding picker. Searches for onboarding/Copilot and first-onboarding PRs found no duplicate change. This is a small improvement to the existing setup flow, consistent with ROADMAP.md. ## What Changed - Limit first-onboarding adapters to Claude and Codex, with existing availability checks. - Remove the Copilot tile, login card, connection state, model discovery, and creation guards from first onboarding. - Retain only migration handling for old Copilot drafts: clear the retired selection/model/flag, restore automatic runner choice, and avoid reusing GitHub bindings when the user selects Claude or Codex. This also works when both onboarding providers are disabled. - Update coverage for provider choices, disabled adapters, and old Copilot and Gemini drafts. - Clear the model when an unavailable saved provider changes to Codex. - Explain how to proceed when both first-onboarding providers are unavailable. - Update the onboarding feature and access maps. - Document the Windows fallback beside automatic runner discovery, with an explicit note to default Windows to native when its runner support is qualified. This inline migration note is an explicit requirement of the change. - Extend both providers' setup coverage for native and legacy availability without forcing a runtime from the browser. ## Verification - 282 tests passed across all onboarding component/route tests and `NewAgentDialog.test.tsx`. This includes the separate adapter-draft suite that CI identified as still expecting Copilot in first onboarding. - The existing server runner-selection suite passed: 231 tests, including native Claude/Codex runtime translation and Windows legacy fallback. This is automated routing coverage; no native Windows end-to-end run is claimed. - UI TypeScript checks and the production UI build passed. - Token gates, feature/access map validation, module-boundary checks, and `git diff --check` passed. - Reviewer command from `ui/`: `pnpm exec vitest run src/components/OnboardingWizard.test.tsx src/components/OnboardingWizard.adapters.test.tsx src/components/OnboardingWizard.step.test.tsx src/components/OnboardingWizardVariant.test.tsx src/components/NewAgentDialog.test.tsx src/lib/onboarding-route.test.ts`. - A separate browser walkthrough on staging completed the Add Agent flow with Codex and confirmed Copilot remained available. That walkthrough used an existing deployment; it does not prove this branch's first-onboarding change. - Ponytail Paperclip Review and Greptile both scored the latest commit `b470f7023ecb6657bd77edefbcaf2ab12fd89414` 5/5. All review threads are resolved. - All latest-head PR checks are complete: 55 passed and 3 neutral/skipped, with no failures or pending checks. Two server shards passed on a single retry after an unchanged timing-sensitive test exceeded its limit and a self-hosted runner lost its connection. No code or test changes were made for the retry. ## Risks - Low scope: the provider filter belongs only to the onboarding wizard. Native Windows runner support is still unmerged (#18250 is only its build/CI baseline), so automatic selection must retain the existing legacy fallback. Platform selection is based on the execution target, not the browser OS. - Users with an old draft for another provider must choose Claude or Codex. Existing agent configuration is not removed. - Instances that disable both providers have no first-onboarding choice. The wizard explains how to enable a provider or use New Agent from the Agents page. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Capabilities used: reasoning, repository edits, shell commands, and browser UI verification. ## 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>
Paperclip agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
The chat scenario catalog uses these same IDs for human requests and expected outcomes. Its scenarios retain the access boundaries here; neither a CEO role nor a planned scenario grants board authority or establishes a working production tool binding.
Use full capability IDs when referring to access contracts outside their file:
onboarding/company means the company capability in onboarding.md in both maps.
The feature index lists feature and
capability IDs; IDs and references
explains entry-point references and stable naming.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api is enabled by default, but explicit server,
company-allowlist and binding settings can narrow admission. It requires a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Connection-management reads support Standard, Ask and Plan; mutations require
Standard. Skill-test runs and nonstandard task-bridge keys cannot administer
connections. These gates supplement each operation's grants, resolved resource
and target scope, and responsible-user authority. See the
rollout policy
and connection authorization.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.