Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 5e8e992df2 fix(storybook): reconcile capability associations and map omissions (#16154)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work.
> - The feature map describes user capabilities and verification
recipes.
> - Storybook holds isolated examples of those capabilities.
> - Missing catalog links can hide existing examples.
> - Some stories also expose shipped capabilities absent from the map.
> - This pull request adds verified source associations and three paired
map entries.
> - Readers can find existing examples without changing their homes or
URLs.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #16052, #16049 and #16046.

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

Storybook capability lookup and the feature/agent access maps.

**Current behavior**

Seventy capabilities have no example link. Some matching stories already
exist. Primary-agent preferences and company decision/fast-response
services appear only under broad neighboring capabilities.

**Proposed behavior**

Add source-supported links across 34 suites. Keep shared foundations in
place while cross-listing them. Add primary-agent, decision-model and
fast-response capabilities to both upstream maps. Retain explicit
simulation and partial-example limits.

**Reason and benefit**

The catalog distinguishes missing associations from missing examples.
The upstream map describes three existing product capabilities more
precisely.

**Breaking changes**

None to product behavior, story exports, folders, sidebar titles or
URLs. A shared foundation can declare a reasoned `home: "foundations"`
override while referencing related capabilities.

## What Changed

- Add 55 references across 34 suites. Replace primary-agent suites'
reporting-line association with their own capability.
- Add three source-reviewed capabilities and their API/actor boundaries
to paired maps.
- Preserve the shared Foundations home when cross-listing developer
design examples. Add a validation regression test.
- Record which exports demonstrate each association and what remains
simulated or unverified.
- Regenerate the catalog and capability data. Preserve all original 223
authored suites and 2,210 story IDs. Retain the two skill-removal
stories added by current master, for 2,212 authored stories in total.
- Reduce empty example lookups from 70 of 171 capabilities to 59 of 174.
Links do not establish complete capability coverage.

## Verification

- Passed: 27 catalog/generator/map tests, catalog validation, map
structural checks, token gates and skill validation.
- Passed: source inventory comparison preserves all authored files,
titles, meta IDs and story IDs.
- Passed: repository typecheck/build and Storybook build. Final built
index has 2,248 entries and preserves all previous entries, including
the two skills stories added by current master.
- The broad local repository test run was interrupted before completion
to resolve a new master conflict. A complete local suite pass is not
claimed; fresh CI passed on the reconciled branch.
- Browser: Design links to preserved Foundations stories;
company-service sections link settings/history/journey suites; decision
SetupToHistory passed 12 interaction steps; primary-agent ReplacePrimary
passed four steps. No console errors in selected checks.
- Greptile: 5/5 on final commit
`805a8af62abe589907e7cc6ca1b415ce1e0cc3c0`, with no findings or
unresolved threads.
- Final-revision CI passed all 57 checks/statuses, including all eight
browser shards, server and Runner tests, typecheck and build. The
unchanged Cloud-auth mocked-response race seen on a superseded revision
did not recur on the final commit. No test expectations were changed.
- New agent-access evidence is source-only. Live provider and
agent-credential verification is not established.

## Risks

- Suite-level associations can represent only selected states. Notes
retain those limits and existing review classifications.
- In-memory connection drafts do not prove reload persistence.
Resume-failure UI does not prove successful continuation. No-op budget
controls do not prove relief or resumption.
- Three map capabilities document existing behavior. No permission, API,
provider or production component changes.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, code execution and source
inspection. The exact runtime model ID and context window 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 (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 08:11:15 -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.