Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 5c7a025032 fix(ui): clear consumed messages from the pending queue (#16317)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Task conversations keep follow-up messages pending while an agent
works.
> - The screen combines optimistic sends, queue snapshots, and run input
records.
> - A late send response can restore a local queue flag after a run
takes the message.
> - A stale queue snapshot can then keep the same message in pending.
> - This pull request matches the input record to its source queue and
clears stale pending flags.
> - The benefit is that consumed messages leave pending while unsent
messages stay visible.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A follow-up can remain in the task composer's pending row after a run
takes it as input. Local queue state can outlive the send request. The
old projection cleared that state for steering, but not for ordinary
run-start input. A stale queue read can also retain the consumed entry.

**Expected behavior**

A message that a started run takes as input appears once in history and
leaves pending. Other pending messages remain available. A message
assigned to a run that has not started remains pending.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Send a follow-up while a task has a live run.
2. Let a started run record that message as input before or after the
send response arrives.
3. Let a queue read still include the consumed message.
4. Observe the message remain pending on the base revision.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Reproduced against master at `33d24e48ad` with controlled request
ordering.

**Deployment mode**

Source checkout. Browser verification used the production task screen
with a simulated native runner and delayed API responses. It did not run
a live model or change a deployed instance.

Related: [PR
#15030](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15030) addresses
acknowledgement matching in the runner console. This change addresses
the task-detail composer and does not modify that console.

## What Changed

- Clear local pending flags when a started run records the comment as
input.
- Use live-run input IDs while the run-history query catches up.
- Match stale queue entries by their primary or coalesced source wake
ID, even when the snapshot targets the previous run or has no target.
- Retain coalesced source queue IDs in run context and include receipt
IDs in compact task run reads.
- Keep unstarted run inputs and authoritative retries pending. Cover
send ordering, same-run and successor delivery, queued snapshots,
coalesced inputs, and retry consumption.
- Add the delivery-race checks to the steering feature map.

## Verification

- Before the fix, the first four request-order regressions failed with
the consumed message still in pending. Coverage now includes 16
combinations of receipt source, send-response order, and stale snapshot
kind.
- Focused UI checks: 5 files and 233 tests passed. These cover task
detail, queue projection, optimistic comments, queued-message controls,
and the task-chat adapter.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- Server receipt checks: 5 files and 139 tests passed with
`PAPERCLIP_TEST_POSTGRES_TEMPLATE=0`. These exercise real database
reads, coalesced heartbeat input, and polling routes. The default
cached-template path timed out during setup on this host; the
fresh-cluster path passed without longer timeouts.
- Token gates and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed.
- Browser: sent a follow-up with a delayed response in the production
task screen. The consumed message moved into history. A second unsent
follow-up stayed queued. Reload preserved both states. The API and
runner were simulated.
- `pnpm build` passed.
- The full local repository test run was started, then stopped to
isolate database setup timeouts. All 55 GitHub CI checks passed on
`4ec6820cf1f89880b801fd5f938d72f54591c5e2`, including the full test
matrix. One serialized server shard passed on its single rerun after a
15-second route-test timeout; the same 97-test route suite also passed
locally.
- Greptile reviewed the final head at 5/5. All review threads are
resolved.

## Risks

- Queue display depends on matching comment IDs, source queue IDs, and a
recorded start time. Rows without start evidence stay pending. Newer
queues remain visible until their own input receipt arrives.
- Run context gains additive receipt metadata. No schema migration is
required. Dispatch order, stored queue state, company access, and
steering authority stay unchanged.
- Browser evidence covers controlled response ordering. It does not
establish deployment or live-provider behavior.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The
exact serving model ID and context-window limit 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
#` 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>
2026-10-14 16:11:29 -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, 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 the affected cross-links together. Indexes discover recipes automatically. 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, navigation metadata, 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 generated maps/generated/coverage.json, which lists page references.

Local authorship and generated indexes

Change only the recipes, access contracts and stories whose behavior or intent changed. Feature recipes own navigation metadata; stories own small parameters.paperclip annotations. Do not register entries or refresh counts in shared READMEs, inventories, fingerprints or review journals.

node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs validates and generates aggregate navigation, Storybook data, verification routes and the page inventory. All outputs live in ignored maps/generated/, ui/storybook/generated/, and the ignored Storybook preview.tsx wrapper. Start/build and UI typechecking generate their own inputs. A clean merged checkout therefore assembles both branches' changes automatically.

Git provides history and diffs. PRs, issues and CI artifacts retain review/run evidence for the named revision. Capability associations do not create whole-file review dependencies. Keep durable scenario limits in the affected recipe or story.