Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 75666224d4 fix(native): use the deadline for remote health retries (#18324)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages agent work and its execution state.
> - Remote Runner processes use health reads to check their saved
process identity.
> - A failed health request cannot prove that the process stopped.
> - Three fast gateway errors can exhaust the old retry limit in half a
second.
> - The caller already gives these reads a shared 30-second recovery
budget.
> - This pull request uses that budget with backoff for read-only
failures.
> - A short gateway outage can then clear without stopping the existing
turn.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A transient HTTP 502 during sandbox process supervision caused an active
native Codex turn to fail. The probe stopped after three attempts, even
when most of its 30-second budget remained. The run reported
`notification_transport_failed` and required workspace recovery.

**Expected behavior**

Retry read-only transport failures within the existing deadline. Keep
process identity conflicts authoritative. Do not repeat a signal after a
lost acknowledgement.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Start a read-only process verification with a 30-second deadline.
2. Return HTTP 502 from its first three transport reads, then allow the
next read to succeed.
3. The old helper rejects after three reads. The fixed helper returns
the successful observation.

Related repairs: #16451 introduced bounded remote probes. #16835 and
#17799 require proof of process exit before replacement. This change
retains those guards.

## What Changed

- Use the existing absolute deadline instead of a three-attempt limit
for read-only probe failures.
- Back off from 250 milliseconds to two seconds. Clip each request to
ten seconds or the remaining budget.
- Preserve the original error and diagnostic when the deadline is
exhausted. Reject non-finite deadlines before an RPC.
- Add a red/green regression and a repeated-gateway-failure case around
a real listening process.
- Update execution semantics and both recovery maps.

## Verification

- Before the fix: the new probe suite failed two behavioral assertions.
The gateway case returned its HTTP 502 error instead of the later
successful observation.
- After the fix: 75 focused probe, diagnostic, process-supervision and
adoption tests pass. The diagnostic failure tests use a controlled clock
for their full 30-second budget. Their error and redaction assertions
stay unchanged.
- Map alignment and module-boundary checks pass.
- Full workspace typecheck and build pass at final commit
`ddd42f66378ebc36ec1d7e0ca1f45943473561b3`.
- The broader affected suite against disposable PostgreSQL passed 994 of
997 tests; its three startup/database timeouts passed unchanged in
isolation. The initial full default local run encountered embedded
PostgreSQL startup failures and did not complete. The four diagnostic
tests that assumed the old short retry timing now use a controlled clock
without weakening their assertions.
- Incident evidence came from Linux AMD64, Node 24.22.2, Core commit
`0c70cedce9a803bdc201324528abb35e423e7cd0`, native Codex `gpt-6.1-sol`,
and a shared ChatGPT subscription. Two separate runs recorded the same
supervision HTTP 502 within one second.
- A disposable live Daytona sandbox check passed on Linux x86_64 and
Node 24.22.1. Three injected gateway failures recovered in 3.31 seconds
on production source from `e54a355fa179022caaa6854302ff56bd85de0229`
(unchanged by the final test-only commit). The real Node listening
process had one launch, retained its exact identity and saved file
across a second read, and produced a confirmed Stop receipt. Sandbox
deletion succeeded. This is process-supervision integration evidence,
not a Codex task or model execution.
- Fixed-revision hosted acceptance and recovery of the original
conversation require rollout. This PR does not claim either. The
duration of the original provider outage remains unknown.

- Final commit `ddd42f66378ebc36ec1d7e0ca1f45943473561b3`: required `ci
/ verify` and `ci / e2e` checks pass; Greptile is 5/5 with no inline
findings. The separate Paperclip Review service has not completed an
assessment and remains queued. It is not a required branch check.

## Risks

- Persistent fast transport failures cause more read-only requests
within the same deadline. Capped backoff limits their rate.
- Missing or changed identity still returns immediately. Failed health
reads still cannot authorize replacement, process signals, or provider
replay.
- Signal requests still have one attempt. The timeout budget and
execution permissions do not change.
- No schema or package changes.

## Model Used

- OpenAI GPT-6, through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection,
and shell tool use. The exact deployment model ID and context-window
size are not exposed by 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>
2026-10-30 10:50:49 -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.

The chat scenario catalog adds natural-language requests, starting context and expected conversational outcomes for the same capability IDs. It lives with Product E2E as planning data; a scenario reference is neither a registered execution nor evidence that a journey passed.

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.

Capability identifiers

The feature ID is the recipe filename without .md, such as onboarding. The full capability ID joins that feature ID and a Sub-features key with /: the company key in feature-map/onboarding.md is onboarding/company. Its agent-access-map/onboarding.md companion uses the same local company key. The feature-map index lists the existing feature and full capability IDs.

Each child page states Feature ID: `onboarding`. after its introduction or product-map link. In feature recipes, show the full ID beside the parsed local key: - `company`: `onboarding/company` — create a company. In access companions and Storybook verification guidance, keep the existing local heading and put Capability ID: `onboarding/company`. beneath it. These labels make the existing identifiers visible without changing keys, anchors, or ID generation.

Use full capability IDs in cross-feature references, Storybook annotations, tests, issues, PRs, and verification evidence. Both segments use lowercase letters, digits, and hyphens. Keep filenames and keys stable when display titles or navigation labels change; renaming either changes the capability ID.

Entry-point IDs describe a surface, such as web-wizard, and are scoped to their recipe. Reference them with a recipe link, such as onboarding.md#web-wizard, and record the capability exercised separately. Navigation section labels are not capability IDs. See IDs and references for examples.

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, and its feature ID, followed by one H2 backticked local key per product sub-feature. Each capability starts with its full capability ID and 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. Update the corresponding chat scenarios when their request, assumptions or expected outcome changes; use multiple cases for meaningfully different starting conditions rather than treating an API path as conversational coverage.

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. Keep the feature-map README's readable ID index aligned with those sources; it does not register entries for generation. Do not 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.