DottaandPaperclip
7d9b93aee2
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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>
3.3 KiB
Local, SSH, and sandbox environments
Operators configure where agents execute, probe readiness, select an environment for work, and inspect remote provisioning or custom-image state when the installed provider supports it.
Implementation: environment settings, environment runtime.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
configuration: inspect local environments and configure available SSH/sandbox targets.capabilities: select only drivers/providers that advertise the required execution capability.probe: test reachability and runtime prerequisites in the actual target.assignment: bind the intended agent/project/workspace to its execution target.images: inspect supported sandbox custom-image preparation and terminal workflows.
How to get to it (user POV)
environment-settings
Open Settings → Environments, then create/edit a supported target.
The canonical URL is /company/settings/instance/environments. Enable
enableEnvironments first; keep enableManagedSandboxOnly off to inspect local
targets. The catalog is instance-scoped and mutation requires a local operator
or instance administrator.
remote-execution
Choose the environment in agent/project/workspace configuration, then inspect the resulting task/run and workspace.
Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use an owned disposable target and a supported provider plugin. Record provider, target identity, account, and spending constraints before a live remote run.
environment-settings
Automated: environment UI, driver configuration UI, and environment service cover configuration behavior.
Manual: Save a disposable target, reload it, and run its available probe. Verify both success and missing-credential/reachability errors identify the target. Confirm unavailable providers are not offered as working run targets.
The local row has no UI Test button. Its API/CLI probe reports host/cwd availability only; it does not validate an adapter binary, workspace, or task execution. Remote-driver probes and a real bounded run need their own evidence.
remote-execution
Automated: execution target and custom images cover contracts; SSH live test requires its own external setup.
Manual: Run a bounded command in the intended target, inspect its output and workspace, and verify execution did not silently fall back to the server host. For custom-image changes, build/probe the disposable image before assigning it. Inspect cleanup and shutdown after the run.
Gotchas
- A probe is narrower evidence than a complete task with tools, files, and resumption.
- The local option may appear only when editing an existing local environment; availability follows current UI/provider capabilities.
- Workspace service reachability and environment reachability are separate checks.