Files
PaperClipAI/maps
Devin FoleyandPaperclip 5a6d0d08a7 fix: record verified workspace file recovery from tasks (#16104)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Recovery must preserve files and show the next operator action.
> - A stopped run can leave a file repair hold after its recovery action
is resolved.
> - The task notice shows that hold but has no form to record verified
file recovery.
> - A chat connection can also replace the file repair instruction with
a chat retry instruction.
> - This pull request adds a file recovery form and preserves the file
repair instruction.
> - The form records evidence for the original run and keeps the current
task status.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A retained workspace file hold can block a task after its recovery
action is resolved. The task page offers no file recovery form. A chat
binding can hide the required file repair instruction.

**Expected behavior**

An authorized board member can record verified recovery of the original
files. The server checks the original stop proof. The task keeps its
current status and does not start another run. Chat instructions must
not replace file repair instructions.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Create a stopped legacy run with a retained workspace recovery marker
and a resolved recovery action.
2. Open its task page, including a task with a chat connection.
3. Observe that the file hold has no supported form to record verified
recovery.

Refs: #15857, #15824, #16095. Those PRs address shutdown export, native
finalization and workspace source isolation. This PR uses the existing
file repair API.

## What Changed

- Add a board-only file recovery form with evidence and an explicit file
verification confirmation.
- Preserve the current task status when recording file recovery.
- Project whether the original recovery marker supports file recording.
- Keep file repair instructions when a task has a chat binding.
- Add UI, route and Storybook examples for success, denial and
chat-connected file holds.
- Document the recovery flow and update the affected Storybook catalog
entries.

## Verification

- Merged master `c8efdbfba43` and resolved both rounds of catalog/index
conflicts. Upstream review notes and classifications are preserved,
together with all four retained-file recovery examples and their stable
story IDs. Both fix branches also combine without merge conflicts or
catalog fingerprint drift.
- Passed locally after conflict resolution: 47 tests covering the file
recovery UI, execution blocker notice and retained workspace repair
route. The earlier ownership-route pass also covered 196 tests.
- Passed: UI token gates, the complete Storybook catalog check with no
drift errors, feature and agent map structure checks, and all 17
catalog/index script tests. Verification inventory counts match all 262
authored suites and 2,485 story IDs. The upstream production
verification obligations remain intact.
- Passed: full workspace typecheck, build and Storybook build on latest
head `10ac22b35d0a4fe469cf620914845c509046da48`. The built index retains
all four file-recovery story IDs.
- Latest head `10ac22b35d0a4fe469cf620914845c509046da48` has 54
successful checks and two intentionally skipped Storybook checks. Apex
is 5/5 on that exact commit, with no unresolved findings. The full
general/serialized suites and all eight browser shards passed in CI.
Local tests use the focused suites above. Storybook browser interactions
have not been executed locally.
- Manual check: open a task with a retained file hold. Verify that
evidence and confirmation are required. Record verified file recovery.
Confirm that its status stays unchanged and no run starts. Repeat
without board runtime access and with an unverified stop receipt.

## Risks

- The form records an operator attestation. It does not recover files
itself or prove external action outcomes.
- A stale source or missing stop proof must remain rejected by the
existing server route.
- No database migration or automatic task retry is added.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`), used through Codex with reasoning, repository
tools, code editing and test execution. The exact context window size is
not exposed by this environment.

## 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>
2026-10-13 13:47:10 -05:00
..

Paperclip maps

The maps describe the same capabilities from two perspectives:

  • Feature map: what a person can do, where to reach it, and how to verify the user journey. Preserve its Poteto format.
  • Agent access map: the APIs and agent entry points for those capabilities, their permission boundaries, and access verification.

These are sibling directories under maps/. Each feature file has a same-named agent access companion. Reuse the product map's sub-feature IDs, so tasks/create identifies the same capability in both maps. Product behavior remains governed by the implementation spec; a map cannot grant authority or redefine a permission denial as success.

Access contract

Every business operation needs both an API and a usable agent entry point for an actor authorized to perform it. A dedicated tool is optional when REST, the CLI, an assigned MCP client, or native search_api / call_api already provides the operation. Record which agent surfaces actually have that path; an installed CLI or optional MCP package cannot be assumed available to every native/remote run.

Track these independently:

Dimension Values and meaning
API present, missing, not-applicable, or unreviewed. Use exact methods/paths; distinguish protocols from REST.
Agent access available, partial, missing, restricted, operator-only, not-applicable, or unreviewed. Name the supported surface and actual entry point.
Policy Actor, action/grant, company/resource/ownership scope, responsible-user intersection, run requirements, work modes, and gates relevant to the operation.
Evidence source-only, verified, failed, blocked, or not-run. Source presence and successful board calls are not agent verification.
Review depth baseline records representative operations and known gaps; operation-reviewed enumerates the capability's meaningful operations and their individual access contracts.

Broad capabilities such as task properties must be split into operations before they count as operation-reviewed: renaming, metadata edits, assignment, dependencies, and lifecycle changes can use different tools and permission rules. An available read path cannot certify a write path. List/get/create/update/delete, execution/control, credential handling, and resolution are separate where their authority or transport differs. Do not duplicate request schemas from OpenAPI.

Exceptions and restrictions

Presentation-only state, static developer fixtures, and pre-start/local operator work may use not-applicable for a domain API, with a concrete reason and the existing local path. When a capability combines shared data with presentation, split the operations: browser recents do not exempt resource lookup from API coverage. Promoting local state to a shared feature requires revisiting the entry.

A board-only endpoint is restricted for agent identity, not an automatic exception or a missing API. Cite the enforced policy and record whether the agent can request the authorized human's action and observe its result. An unresolved delegation question remains in Gaps. Company access, a job title, a personal assistant's OAuth grant, or an accepted interaction does not grant board identity. Keep budget, approval, secret and execution authority intact.

Check actual route/service authorization and production tool admission. OpenAPI actor labels and scenario/evaluation tool declarations are supporting metadata; record disagreements rather than using them as proof of access. Native API fallback restrictions, tool field/scope limits, and rollout settings are part of the agent path, even when a legacy agent can call the REST endpoint directly.

Companion file format

Each agent-access-map/<area>.md has an H1, a relative link to its product file, review date and source commit, followed by one H2 backticked ID per product sub-feature. Each capability contains these fields:

  • Review: baseline or operation-reviewed.
  • API: presence state and exact operation IDs, or a reasoned exception.
  • Agent access: availability state and concrete entry points by surface.
  • Policy: relevant permission and runtime boundaries, with source references.
  • Evidence: evidence state, reviewed commit and sources or executed proof.
  • Verification: allowed/denied assertions and observable result; record what has actually run separately from the proposed recipe.
  • Gaps: missing APIs/paths, discovery drift, unreviewed operations or policy decisions; use none only for the enumerated scope that was reviewed.

For an operation-reviewed capability, use H3 backticked operation IDs and repeat API, Agent access, Policy, Evidence, Verification and Gaps for each operation. Use small operation names such as create, update, read, or run-now. The enclosing capability has Review: operation-reviewed only after its meaningful operations have been enumerated. The following excerpt shows one operation; include the others before using that review label:

## `definition`

Review: `operation-reviewed`.

### `create`

API: `present` — POST /api/companies/{companyId}/routines.
Agent access: `available` — agent REST, CLI routine create and native call_api
under the enabled rollout and active-run/mode gates.
Policy: same company; assigneeAgentId must be the calling agent; cite the
routine authorization and native API policy sources.
Evidence: `source-only` — reviewed commit and source links; no live proof.
Verification: `not-run` — create an owned routine; reject assignment to another
agent; inspect saved configuration, attribution and retry behavior.
Gaps: verify ownership and responsible-user resolution with a permitted agent
context; source presence alone does not qualify this operation.

Keeping the maps synchronized

When a change adds/removes a capability or changes its behavior, API, permission, tool binding, CLI support, or work mode, update the affected companion and product recipe as appropriate in the same change. Preserve IDs across renames where the capability is unchanged; update both indexes and cross-links together. An API-only change may update the companion without rewriting unchanged user instructions.

maintain-verification-skill owns reconciliation of both maps. It follows changed source and authorization, checks real agent reachability, and records product gaps without implementing them during a maintenance pass. The creation skill uses this structure. verify-paperclip consumes the relevant recipes and reports evidence/drift; map editing belongs to maintenance.

Run the structural check after map changes:

node scripts/check-maps.mjs

It checks paired areas/IDs, indexes, required fields, and local references. It does not certify endpoint authorization, production bindings, operation completeness, or live behavior. Source audits must check those against the existing API and tool contracts; avoid a second schema catalog or runtime.

For live access proof, use Paperclip's existing API/runner/MCP fixtures or an owned isolated instance. Use the actual agent identity, target and work mode. Assert the allowed result and relevant denial (another company/private resource, wrong owner, missing grant, invalid run, restricted mode or resolver). Mutations also need persisted state/attribution and retry behavior. Capture evidence using the existing artifact workflow; keep executed run results separate from product-map coverage.json, which records documentation scope.