## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Task creation can bind a child to its parent's execution workspace. > - Native sandbox runs reserve that workspace before the provider starts. > - Remote reservation rejected inherited isolated workspaces and operator branches because the original source task differed. > - This check stopped valid child tasks before their existing access and writer checks could run. > - This pull request uses the persisted binding and existing source-access checks to admit that continuation. > - The benefit is that authorized child tasks can continue saved work while the single-writer lock stays effective. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A child inherited an active isolated remote workspace through normal task creation. Its next run failed during setup with `Workspace ownership changed.` No provider work started. The reservation guard treated the original `sourceIssueId` as exclusive ownership, although task creation had persisted a valid child binding. **Expected behavior** A bound child or follow-up can reserve the workspace after the prior writer saves. Current task/run access, source visibility, trust, company scope, closed-workspace state, and writer checks must still apply. The original source task remains provenance. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a task with an active saved remote isolated workspace or operator branch. 2. Create a child without an explicit workspace override. 3. Confirm that the child inherited the execution workspace ID. 4. Start its native sandbox run. The old reservation guard rejects it before provider execution. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on source based on `06bc8db75c71142ed108e0f331394c5187015d6a`. The same guard is present at `1a6017d6460267ad89d7e1784e2b521c28d8e9ac`. Related: #17156 proposes separate workspaces for child tasks. This repair preserves the current inheritance contract and enforces the remote writer lock. #16911 addresses child bindings across repositories. ## What Changed - Remove the original-task equality restriction for active remote workspaces. Keep the existing persisted-binding and retained-source authorization path. Explicit task-root selection follows the existing V1 filesystem contract; task-assignment grants do not define filesystem permissions. - Keep closed workspace rejection and unfinished-writer checks. - Add database-backed regressions for inheritance, replay, competing children, an unbound task, private source data, company isolation, and closed records. - Extend real save/restore tests for inherited isolated workspaces and operator branches. Keep shared-workspace discovery coverage. - Update the development guide and workspace maps. ## Verification - Red: before the repair, the inherited isolated/operator cases fail with `Workspace ownership changed.` The shared case passes. The unfixed suite has five failures and four passes. - Green: 11 reservation cases pass with real PostgreSQL 18 in an isolated Docker container. - An earlier run of the four affected workspace/preparation/trust suites passed 191 tests. The review follow-up passes all 15 selected reservation/save/restore cases. Inherited cases remove the original files, use a distinct allocation and target, restore the saved file, append child work, and independently read that work from the child's new snapshot. Shared-source discovery stays covered. The filter excludes 42 other integration cases. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check` pass. A direct server typecheck also passes after the final test edit. - `pnpm test:run` stopped in its first chat shard: 338 passed, one Discord receiver-lease setup failure, 1,478 outside the shard. The failing test passes in isolation on both the unchanged baseline and the fix. Its suite-order failure is not explained by that retry and remains recorded. The unchanged baseline also fails three other Discord publication cases in that chat shard, while its next chat shard passes. This does not reproduce or explain the original lease failure; both results remain recorded. CI is complete on `e697f6e1b8`: 54 successful check runs, one successful legacy status, three skipped checks, and one neutral check. No check is pending or failed. Greptile gives this commit 5/5 with no remaining findings. The security reviewer accepted the V1-contract explanation; both review threads are resolved. - Live sandbox acceptance remains unverified. The available test credentials could not resolve the required sandbox snapshot. The provider rejected creation before workspace execution, and a scoped follow-up found no allocation. No live model turn, deployment, or original-task recovery is claimed. - Local environment: macOS arm64, Node 26.4.0, pnpm 9.15.4. Native PostgreSQL startup hit the host semaphore limit; tests use disposable Docker databases. No shared database was reset. ## Risks - A bound child can now write after the prior writer releases the workspace. Incorrect binding or access checks could expose source data. Regressions cover unbound, private-source, and foreign-company rejection. - Concurrent children must not become two writers. A real transaction race grants exactly one reservation; saved-file tests keep the second writer blocked until save completes. - No schema or migration changes. This PR does not change task-creation inheritance, requested models, credentials, trust, approval gates, or recovery budgets. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, tool use, code execution, and browser diagnostics. No sub-agents were used. ## 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 — the targeted workspace suites pass; the full local chat-suite failure and baseline comparison are 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 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:
baselineoroperation-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
noneonly 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.