DottaandPaperclip
7ae81c9fa7
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Questions and review decisions must work in the conversation where a task started. > - Slack omitted question context and did not publish several review kinds. > - Some answers saved in Paperclip also lost their authorized continuation or their final Slack reply. > - A settled card and a successful run did not prove that the user received the result. > - This pull request preserves complete questions and follows the existing answer and delivery receipts through continuation. > - Users can read the request, submit an authorized decision, and receive the resumed task's result in the same conversation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17045 and #17218. **What happened?** Slack question cards could omit instructions and editable starting text. Checkbox reviews, item verdicts, task suggestions, and connection requests had no publication path. Complex question answers submitted in Paperclip could fail continuation authorization. Several review continuations completed without delivering their result to Slack. **Expected behavior** Show the actual question and context. Use native Slack controls when they preserve the form contract. Otherwise provide an explicit Paperclip review link. Persist one authorized response, resume through the existing delivery path, settle the card, and deliver the useful result to its originating conversation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a task in Slack and ask a text or choice question with instructions and help text. 2. Submit native text and choice responses, then submit a complex form through Paperclip. 3. Accept a checklist, submit item decisions, select suggested tasks, or decline a connection request. 4. Inspect the saved answer, continuation run, original Slack card, and final Slack reply independently. ## What Changed - Preserve full prompts, context, descriptions, recommendations, help, and editable starting text. Use direct buttons for short choices, inline searchable selects for longer lists, and native checkboxes with explicit submission for multiple choices. - Add native custom-answer and validated-text modals, ordinary confirmation buttons, checklist decisions, per-item verdicts with reasons, suggested-task creation/dismissal, and connection decline. Keep governed approvals, permission grants, and forms that cannot be represented faithfully in the full Paperclip review surface. - Keep Slack-specific canonical-validation feedback in its owning platform module. Shared callbacks delegate without interpreting provider presentation. - Reuse the existing canonical interaction transactions, callback receipts, publication queue, and continuation delivery. Share ordinary confirmation handling across Telegram and Slack. Recheck current authorization and commit response receipts atomically. - Settle cards with the saved answer and remove stale controls. Ignore passive Slack link callbacks so opening a task does not display a false answer error. - Validate exact multi-select receipt mappings during native continuation. Recover automation-origin connection replies from their published prompt after validating the durable connection receipt. - Keep oversized multi-select handoffs free of unused native tokens, and retain the complete Paperclip form for 101–128 choices plus Other. Make the original-conversation audience explicit before submitting a Slack modal. - Add rollback, provider serialization, callback, continuation, and negative authorization regressions. Update the connector playbook and feature/access maps. No React or application UI changes are included. - Add a durable Q01–Q11 qualification index and provider coverage matrix. Require distinct functional, good-experience, and best-available-control assessments; real unanswered/answering/settled evidence; saved results, continuation and navigation proof; and retained failures. Mark other providers unaudited rather than assuming Slack parity. ## Verification Candidate: `e0017d446b1016a38d65382366cd1408cce33039`. The eleven-core-format live Slack gallery is pinned to `c3d458b2a06b660448940fd8cf33c5906f0058d5`; subsequent boundary fixes and the sharing notice have automated verification, not new live screenshots. - Real Slack UI testing covered all 11 formats: text, closed choice, long single select, multiple choices, choices with a custom answer, pattern-validated text, confirmation, checklist, item verdicts, suggested tasks, and connection requests. Each has unanswered/answering/answered screenshots as applicable, an inspected saved result, one continuation, and an individual experience review in the local HTML gallery. - The dedicated private QA app/channel used signed callbacks to the local candidate. A separately approved password-protected, read-only preview proved connection-review, suggested-task review, and created-task navigation. Anonymous access, writes, and credential routes were denied. No OAuth grant was attempted. - Real testing exposed and repaired a multi-select continuation failure and a misleading error on link-button clicks. Failed attempts remain in the evidence. The final navigation replay opened the exact pending connection request and declined it in Slack without granting access. Suggested-task creation produced the selected child with the correct parent and description. - Final review-fix verification: **32 form tests**, **28 provider/form-rendering tests**, **30 publication tests**, and **171 native continuation/authorization tests** passed. Earlier **3 atomic-resolution rollback**, **9 targeted callback/publication/Telegram**, and **28 review-continuation** cases passed. The final Slack/Teams modal subset also passed. The automation-origin connection cases, 101/128 custom-choice cases, and oversized multi-select continuation reproduced before their fixes and passed afterward; failing logs remain retained. These counts describe relevant runs, not a reliability percentage. - CI on `b5885b85fd` exposed a test fixture that assumed every Slack modal block was an input; the new sharing notice correctly renders a non-input block. The fixture now selects input blocks safely. The exact signed-modal correction/one-continuation test passed locally, together with 14 Slack form/modal tests. The failing CI log and its specific cause remain recorded. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. Server typechecking was repeated after the final source changes. Map and module-boundary checks and `git diff --check` passed. - The full `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after repeated embedded PostgreSQL semaphore exhaustion on this host. Its 1,395-test chat suite found two stale native-control assertions; both were corrected and re-tested in a focused run. Focused database suites used separate disposable databases on existing local PostgreSQL. The full suite is not claimed green; new-head CI must complete before merge. - Final-head CI passed on `e0017d446b1016a38d65382366cd1408cce33039`: all test/build jobs and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` gates are green ([run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40115430194)). Greptile and Ponytail both reviewed this exact head at 5/5, the security scan passed, and all review threads are resolved. - All three QA app callbacks were restored to staging. Both temporary tunnels and local proxies were closed. The local endpoint was archived and its local credential copies removed. The candidate app was stopped. Limits: provider execution used a deterministic Claude protocol fixture, not an LLM. This is local real-provider UX proof, not deployed staging or broader Codie/Claude qualification. The public preview intentionally blocked ancillary artifact routes, so its destination pages could show a partial-history warning. The complete permission-grant flow and every oversized/mixed-form branch were not driven manually. Earlier fixture, test, and provider failures remain recorded. ## Risks - New reply routes require durable origin proof. Incorrect receipt matching could lose a reply or route it incorrectly. Tests cover missing, forged, mismatched, and revoked authority. - Governed forms keep their Paperclip resolution checks. This change does not grant new approval authority to Slack. - Existing completed review results can become deliverable through the repaired publication path without another provider run. - No schema, lockfile, workflow, public task-status model, or runtime-instruction change is included. This branch is not deployed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with code execution and tool use. The exact backend model ID and context-window size 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run focused 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 on the new head - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on the new head - [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.
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.
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.