Nicky LeachandPaperclip
5fbece9dcc
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages shared skills and agent assignments. > - Runtime plugins need installed skills before a task starts. > - Skill content can change without changing the agent row. > - Source access and version pins also affect delivered files. > - This pull request feeds those changes into the durable runtime stream. > - The runtime reader resolves the same immutable skill sources used for execution. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Builds on merged PR #16499. This pull request now targets `master` and contains only the five skill synchronization commits. **Problem** Plugins receive no durable notification when an assigned skill changes. A saved assignment can also become inaccessible after private-source access changes. **Proposed solution** Invalidate referencing agents at installed skill mutations. Invalidate inherited access when source bindings, project privacy, or policy change. Return authorized skill sources and version IDs through the owning runtime reader. **Alternatives considered** Activity-only subscriptions miss service writers. Per-task synchronization adds preparation work. Copying current files would ignore version pins. **Roadmap alignment** This extends existing skills, source synchronization, and plugin runtime support. ## What Changed - Defer multi-skill source runtime hooks until commit, after publication holds all skill rows. Keep file-save journaling immediate to preserve filesystem rollback. - Add transactional invalidations for skill content, companion files, versions, rename, deletion, policy, source access, and pin-setting changes. - Recognize canonical keys and supported legacy aliases. - Reuse the execution skill resolver, current agent access, and instance version-pin rules. - Resolve and materialize sources outside the agent row lock. Recheck ownership and runtime revision afterward. - Keep task-only mentions and running-task snapshots in the execution path. - Document conservative invalidations for pinned assignments and inherited access. ## Verification - Rebased onto origin/master `9f4a956b90`, which contains merged PR #16499. All five commits are unchanged according to `git range-diff`; no conflict resolutions or source changes were needed. - On rebased head `58b065941`, all 237 focused tests passed: runtime skill hooks/source publication (41), plus content service, assignment routes, policy routes, and project source access (196). - Server typecheck passed after rebuilding Runner with the installed Rust toolchain. Migration numbering/safety and map checks passed; snapshot pruning made no changes. Migration CLI checks required local IPC permission. - Real PostgreSQL coverage includes concurrent source publication/version saves, policy-only tightening/restoration, referencing-agent fanout, company isolation, no-op counters, supporting files, rename/deletion, rollback, private-source access, pinned/latest bytes, and unassignment. - Earlier stack validation passed workspace typecheck/build. Fresh hosted CI and review must verify the rebased head before handoff. - The broad local suite was previously limited by an unchanged diagnostic test that rejects "private" in an error stack under this /private/tmp worktree; that unchanged suite passed all 108 tests in the original checkout. Hosted full-suite checks provide exact-head verification. - Diff whitespace and full PR secret/PII scan passed. - All hosted CI/security checks are green on `58b065941`; fresh standard Greptile and Apex both returned 5/5 with no findings or unresolved threads. The PR targets master and is mergeable without conflicts. ## Risks - Apply migration 0348 after the runtime-stream migration in #16499. - Content invalidations include pinned assignments. The resolved version stays pinned; consumers can avoid writes when its version/hash is unchanged. - Project access and source changes invalidate only agents assigned skills from the affected sources. Company policy still invalidates the company. Source polling bookkeeping and popularity counters do not create work. - The reader rebuilds installed caches without upstream requests. Concurrent changes cause a bounded retry and then a conflict. - Private transport integration and live remote computer qualification remain separate. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and testing. The exact deployment 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 references) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused suites; broad local limitation documented above) - [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.
Browse features
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. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
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 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.
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. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
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 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.