Nicky LeachandPaperclip
835966dec8
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/1/changes/paperclip/1 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their execution environments. > - New agent setup saves an inactive agent before model connection tests. > - Some plugins need that agent to prepare its execution resource. > - The wizard tested without the agent ID, while the setup hold prevented preparation. > - Environment changes also discarded the selected model account. > - This change prepares the saved draft during setup and keeps normal execution held. > - Users can test the prepared resource before they finish hiring. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An agent-owned plugin environment could not acquire a test lease during hiring. Changing environments also returned the user to Connect and cleared the selected account. **Expected behavior** Keep the selected account, invalidate its test, and prepare the saved agent resource in the background. Test that same agent before finishing setup. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a new Claude or Codex agent and select a saved account. 2. Change to an agent-owned plugin environment. 3. Try to finish setup or reconnect the account. Related: #17750 defers probes until after hire submission. This change implements preparation during the wizard instead. The related PR search and ROADMAP review found no other implementation of this setup preparation path. ## What Changed - Add the optional `requiresAgent` driver declaration. Require agent lifecycle participation when it is set. - Prepare saved drafts on creation or environment changes. Keep the setup hold and wait in `verifying` without background verification scans. - Bind tests to the saved agent. Return a warning without allocating a lease when the required agent is absent or still preparing. - Preserve the account and configuration step when the environment changes. Save the selection and invalidate the old test. - Show active preparation and support authorized retries. Keep approval, company, budget, and normal task admission controls. - Document the contract and cover lifecycle, lease, manifest, and wizard behavior. ## Verification - Server and UI TypeScript checks passed. - 112 wizard and setup helper tests passed. The shared manifest suite passed. - 123 lifecycle, policy, lease, and environment-test API cases passed after the approval-gate fix. The diagnostic and driver suites and all 80 agent adapter route tests also passed. - Token gates, module boundaries, map validation, and whitespace checks passed. - All 66 lifecycle/policy cases passed after the stopping-draft permission fix. The new real-DB route case verifies creator success, other-creator denial, and refusal to complete a hire while stopping. - Full workspace typecheck and build were attempted. Both stop at the unchanged Rust Runner step because Cargo is not installed on this host. - CI on43be3c93dpassed all automated checks, including full test shards, typecheck, build, Rust checks, browser suites, and canary checks: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40368174530. - The full local repository test command was started. Two unchanged workspace tests assume Git's initial branch is master; this host defaults to main. Both fail in isolation under the host default and pass with process-scoped init.defaultBranch=master. The broad run was stopped after those confirmed fixture failures; CI supplies the full clean check. - Early new-test failures were fixture collisions and an unscoped sweep assertion; the fixtures and assertion were corrected. One route-suite load raced with SDK output regeneration; rebuilding first and running the suite afterward passed. - Initial CI exposed a route mock missing the new prerequisite lookup. The fixture was updated and a real HTTP no-lease case was added; all 54 cases in that route suite pass. Security review identified allocation before required approval; the new approval gate and its tests address it. - CI on50b5a08afreported 32 of 33 expected calls in the unchanged cleanup-history scheduling test. Its isolated case passed locally without cleanup-code changes; the original failure remains recorded and the final CI run passes on the current head. - Standard Greptile reviewed43be3c93dat 5/5. A subsequent deeper review identified runner selection, stale detail reads, error retention, and test file size issues; 70343387b addresses all four with resolved threads. Standard review returned 5/5 on that commit and again on rebased headfda42c5ab. The rebase preserves master's new managed environment skill declarations alongside requiresAgent. Full CI onfda42c5abpasses: 55 successful checks, two intentional skips, no failures. Run: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40405121641. - After those fixes, 133 UI tests and 61 lifecycle/policy cases pass; all eight focused UI regressions fail against the previous implementation and pass with the fix. Token, map, and whitespace gates pass. The stale-read fixture initially omitted the setup URL because navigation is mocked; following the URL activates the real detail query and reproduces the race. - UI TypeScript passes. This host's server dependency links now point to a separate scratch checkout lacking requiresAgent, so the ordinary server check reports that missing property. A no-emit check pinned to this branch's shared declarations passes; it disables declaration generation and supplies explicit local type roots. The first temporary configuration lacked those type roots; the corrected configuration passes. CI remains the full workspace verification. - After rebasing onto8373d7867, all 133 UI, 61 lifecycle/policy, and 44 manifest cases pass again, as do UI TypeScript, token, map, and whitespace checks. The server no-emit check now hits three mismatched SDK/Runner declarations from the scratch dependency links; these are outside this change. Full CI builds the complete dependency set. - Review cycle: the first Apex review scored 3/5 with four findings. All were fixed together, the branch was rebased to resolve a schema conflict, full CI and standard Greptile passed, and a second Apex review returned 5/5 onfda42c5abwith zero new comments. All six review threads are resolved, and the PR is conflict-free. Review: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17761#issuecomment-6422635718. - No live provider resource was created and no deployment was performed. ## Risks Plugins must opt in and ship a compatible declaration. Companies requiring hire approval keep drafts paused and defer allocation and verification until approval. Other companies prepare drafts during the wizard under their existing agent-creation authority; the setup hold still blocks ordinary work. Preparation uses existing lifecycle ownership, retry, and cleanup paths. The open wizard polls only while preparation or stopping is active. No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window size are not exposed. ## 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 described the issue in-PR using the bug report fields - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run the targeted tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip gates are green — 55 successful checks and two intentional skips onfda42c5ab- [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.
The chat scenario catalog describes how people might request these capabilities in conversation, including setup and permission branches. These are planned Product E2E journeys, not live coverage results.
IDs and references
Use the existing IDs in issues, PRs, Storybook annotations, tests, and verification evidence:
| Reference | Example | Defined by |
|---|---|---|
| Feature ID | onboarding |
The recipe filename without .md. |
| Capability ID | onboarding/company |
The feature ID plus a key from its Sub-features list, separated by /. |
| Entry-point reference | onboarding.md#web-wizard | The recipe filename plus its entry-point heading. The local entry-point ID is web-wizard. |
For example, report verifying onboarding/company through web-wizard.
Capabilities describe behavior; entry points identify the surface used to exercise
it. Entry-point IDs are separate from generated capability IDs. Both maps and
Storybook use the same full capability IDs. Each child page states its feature
ID; recipe bullets show the full capability ID beside the local key, and access
companions show it beneath the local heading. Local keys remain unchanged for
parsing and existing anchors.
Keep recipe filenames, sub-feature keys, and entry-point keys stable when changing display titles or navigation. Renaming a filename or key changes its references. The section headings below are navigation labels, not additional IDs.
Browse features
Use this index to open a recipe or copy its feature and full capability IDs.
Getting started and access
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
onboarding |
Onboarding and first work | onboarding/instance, onboarding/company, onboarding/adapter, onboarding/first-task, onboarding/resume |
access |
Login, invitations, and access | access/login, access/invitations, access/membership, access/resources, access/cli-auth |
companies |
Companies and portability | companies/selection, companies/identity, companies/decision-models, companies/prompt-injection-prevention, companies/fast-responses, companies/agent-observability, companies/archive, companies/portability |
Tasks and conversations
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
tasks |
Task creation and lifecycle | tasks/create, tasks/organize, tasks/properties, tasks/discussion, tasks/completion, tasks/privacy |
task-coordination |
Delegation, dependencies, and signoff | task-coordination/delegation, task-coordination/dependencies, task-coordination/signoff, task-coordination/tree-control |
inbox-search |
Inbox, decisions, and search | inbox-search/views, inbox-search/triage, inbox-search/decisions, inbox-search/search, inbox-search/toasts |
agent-chat |
Agent conversations and project handoff | agent-chat/discovery, agent-chat/history, agent-chat/handoff, agent-chat/conference-room |
questions-and-approvals |
Questions and approvals | questions-and-approvals/questions, questions-and-approvals/dismiss-and-reopen, questions-and-approvals/confirmations, questions-and-approvals/plan-review, questions-and-approvals/audience, questions-and-approvals/governance, questions-and-approvals/tool-review, questions-and-approvals/continuation |
steering |
Steering and queued messages | steering/queue, steering/edit-order-discard, steering/steer, steering/interrupt, steering/stop-and-pause, steering/drafts, steering/approval-queue |
documents-artifacts |
Documents, attachments, and work products | documents-artifacts/documents, documents-artifacts/annotations, documents-artifacts/attachments, documents-artifacts/work-products, documents-artifacts/library |
Agents and reusable capabilities
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
agents |
Hiring, configuration, and organization | agents/hire, agents/grok-bot, agents/instructions, agents/organization, agents/primary-agent, agents/lifecycle, agents/built-in, agents/api-keys, agents/managed-agent-setup |
runs-adapters |
Runs, harnesses, and model accounts | runs-adapters/availability, runs-adapters/validation, runs-adapters/runs, runs-adapters/session |
skills |
Skills and Skill Studio | skills/discovery, skills/authoring, skills/versions, skills/policy, skills/testing |
teams |
Team packages and installation | teams/discovery, teams/preview, teams/install, teams/configuration |
Projects and execution
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
projects |
Projects and repositories | projects/lifecycle, projects/task-context, projects/repositories, projects/defaults, projects/privacy |
goals |
Goals and work alignment | goals/hierarchy, goals/alignment, goals/navigation |
workspaces |
Workspaces, services, and files | workspaces/binding, workspaces/provisioning, workspaces/services, workspaces/files-git, workspaces/closure |
execution-environments |
Execution environments | execution-environments/configuration, execution-environments/capabilities, execution-environments/probe, execution-environments/assignment, execution-environments/images |
recovery |
Recovery | recovery/diagnosis, recovery/bounded-continuation, recovery/source-action, recovery/exhaustion, recovery/workspace, recovery/unknown-outcome, recovery/user-continuation, recovery/reconnect |
Apps, channels, and extensions
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
connection-setup |
Connection setup | connection-setup/catalog, connection-setup/identity-and-access, connection-setup/credentials, connection-setup/handoff, connection-setup/draft-recovery, connection-setup/task-request, connection-setup/channel-setup, connection-setup/failure |
assistant-connections |
Assistant connections (MCP) | assistant-connections/setup, assistant-connections/consent, assistant-connections/device-login, assistant-connections/client-use, assistant-connections/revocation |
app-permissions |
App access and action permissions | app-permissions/agent-access, app-permissions/action-policy, app-permissions/catalog-change, app-permissions/test-action, app-permissions/account-maintenance |
chat-channels |
External chat and email | chat-channels/providers, chat-channels/identity, chat-channels/conversation, chat-channels/attachments, chat-channels/lifecycle, chat-channels/outbound-email |
gateways-profiles |
Tool gateways and access profiles | gateways-profiles/gateway, gateways-profiles/profiles, gateways-profiles/client-connect, gateways-profiles/tokens, gateways-profiles/activity |
secrets |
Secrets and proposals | secrets/company-secrets, secrets/user-secrets, secrets/proposals, secrets/vault-import, secrets/runtime-delivery |
plugins |
Plugins | plugins/installation, plugins/configuration, plugins/contributions, plugins/lifecycle |
Automation and structured work
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
routines |
Routines, schedules, and triggers | routines/definition, routines/triggers, routines/run-now, routines/history, routines/management |
cases |
Cases | cases/browse, cases/structure, cases/history, cases/task-links, cases/handoffs |
status-cards |
Status cards | status-cards/authoring, status-cards/generation, status-cards/inspection, status-cards/archive |
Oversight and operation
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
budgets-costs |
Costs and budgets | budgets-costs/cost-reporting, budgets-costs/budgets, budgets-costs/incidents, budgets-costs/resolution, budgets-costs/subscriptions, budgets-costs/accounting-recovery |
activity |
Dashboards and audit trails | activity/overview, activity/activity, activity/runs, activity/routine-audit, activity/timeline, activity/agent-commentary |
navigation-preferences |
Navigation, profile, and announcements | navigation-preferences/navigation, navigation-preferences/preferences, navigation-preferences/profile, navigation-preferences/announcements, navigation-preferences/fallbacks, navigation-preferences/command-palette |
instance-operations |
Instance operations | instance-operations/install-update, instance-operations/server-service, instance-operations/configuration, instance-operations/diagnostics, instance-operations/backup, instance-operations/runtime-setup |
cli-operations |
CLI/API and local worktrees | cli-operations/context, cli-operations/domain-commands, cli-operations/outputs, cli-operations/run-controls, cli-operations/worktree-instances, cli-operations/feedback-export |
Contributor surfaces
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
developer-labs |
Developer previews and diagnostic labs | developer-labs/design, developer-labs/interaction-labs, developer-labs/performance, developer-labs/route-gates |
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. Recipes are discovered automatically from their navigation
metadata; generation does not depend on this high-level index.
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 ID, full capability IDs and
entry-point ID (for example, onboarding/company through web-wizard), plus the
recipe link, 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. Product E2E reports reuse these capability IDs through the journey associations. Their coverage view shows which scenarios in a campaign are linked to each capability and the associated test results. An association or passing scenario does not certify the whole capability; unselected and unmapped journeys remain distinct.
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. Discovery uses the recipe and companion; keep the readable ID index above aligned when features or capability IDs change.
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 local keys, full capability IDs, and observable behavior/states,
such as
- `company`: `onboarding/company` — create a company. - 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.