DottaandPaperclip
e5927e1db9
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and inspect their work. > - Commentary collects agent suggestions and complaints for company members. > - Commentary used the permission for detailed agent-action audits. > - Owners, admins and viewers could therefore receive a permission error when they opened Commentary. > - This pull request gives commentary its own permission and enables it for all human company roles. > - Members can read feedback while task privacy and detailed audit access keep their own checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16884, which added the Commentary browser. A search found no open PR for this permission fix. **What happened?** Commentary returned `Missing permission: audit:view_agent_actions` for company members without the detailed audit grant. Default owners, admins and viewers did not receive that grant. **Expected behavior** All human company roles can read commentary by default. A separate `commentary:view` permission controls this access. Private source tasks remain private. Commentary access does not grant detailed agent-action audits or CSV exports. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Sign in as an active company owner, admin or viewer without `audit:view_agent_actions`. 2. Open Audit, then Commentary. 3. Observe the permission error before this change. **Paperclip version or commit** Base commit: `7c58ea07b2`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated server or Cloud tenant. ## What Changed - Add `commentary:view` to the shared permission contract and all human role defaults. - Require that permission for commentary list and detail reads. - Add an idempotent upgrade migration for existing active human members. Preserve existing grants and scopes. - Add the commentary default when approving saved human invitation grants that omit it, including pre-upgrade invitations. Preserve explicit commentary scopes. - Add regression coverage for role defaults, permission removal, audit separation, private tasks and migration replay. - Update the API description, specifications, database notes and access maps. ## Verification - Passed 68 tests across commentary reads, role grants, old-invitation HTTP acceptance, migration replay, agent audit routes, access services and migration snapshot drift under the repository's locked dependencies. - Confirmed the new role and read tests failed before the implementation. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Migration numbering and safety checks passed during the build. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally after the invitation fix. - The final-commit CI matrix passed, including all test shards, typecheck, build, public-install checks and canary smoke. The redundant local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the full CI matrix completed; the 68 focused local regressions passed separately. - The first install bypassed the stale lockfile and selected a newer diff-viewer API. The initial typecheck and build failed in that unrelated plugin. Installing the locked versions cleared both failures; the tracked lockfile is unchanged. - The first locked-dependency regression run hit the 15-second limit while importing the audit route graph in its first test. Moving that import into suite setup fixed the timeout; all 58 regressions then passed. - Greptile found that pre-upgrade invitations retain old grant lists. New helper and HTTP regressions reproduced this gap before the fix, then passed after approval added the missing commentary default. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no remaining actionable findings. Its earlier thread is resolved. - No UI code changed. The permission tests use real disposable PostgreSQL databases and HTTP routes. ## Risks - The upgrade deliberately enables commentary for every existing active human company member, including viewers. Existing commentary grants retain their saved scopes. - Source-task privacy still filters previews, counts, searches and full messages. Agent-authenticated browsing remains denied. - Agent-action audit grants, detailed filters and CSV export permissions keep their current behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository editing and command execution. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed to 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>
Paperclip feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.
Browse features
Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.
Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in
maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the
Storybook guide. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature filename and entry-point ID, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result, command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant, without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page
modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module
is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested.
Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations
describe documentation scope, not runtime health.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with
the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior
and that local references still exist. Keep the same-named agent access companion
and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only
access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run
node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks;
follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.
Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:
---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---
The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas
section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and
has Scope (ui, cli, or browser),
Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions
and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API.
The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.
After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
New or updated entries follow
Poteto's feature-map examples.
Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when
their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by
Omnigent's feature map.
Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.