Files
PaperClipAI/maps
Devin FoleyandPaperclip 837add0caa fix(recovery): deliver review-path repair instructions to agent prompts (#17353)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip keeps agent tasks moving through owned execution and
durable waiting paths.
> - A consumed review path gets one repair wake before board escalation.
> - That wake records an instruction to save a new monitor or another
real review path.
> - The canonical wake builder omitted that instruction from the agent
prompt.
> - This pull request delivers it through the existing
disposition-repair section.
> - The repair limit and execution authority stay unchanged.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

An agent opened a pull request and promised to watch CI and external
review. It ended without scheduling a monitor. Its bounded review repair
also ended without a maintained path, so the task became blocked for a
board decision. The saved repair context contained the instruction, but
the canonical wake payload and rendered prompt did not.

**Expected behavior**

The repair prompt tells the agent to save a one-shot monitor before
promising another check. Both fresh and resumed sessions receive that
instruction and the one-attempt limit.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Create a review-path recovery with `decideIssueReviewPathRecovery`
for a task whose review path was consumed.
2. Pass its recorded context through `buildPaperclipWakePayload` and
wake serialization.
3. Render a fresh or resumed prompt. Before this fix, it has the wake
reason but no repair instruction.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Base: `9c442cf48e6`. Current head:
`f38d65891c8d9f2b38eb76a8578e870debc2b1e6`.

**Deployment mode**

Observed on managed sandbox execution with the legacy Claude ACP
adapter. The corrected canonical payload serves the shared adapter
prompt path.

Refs #15764 introduced the bounded exhausted-repair disposition. This
change preserves that limit. Open monitor-retry work such as #17171
addresses an already scheduled check; this defect occurs before a check
exists. Searches found no duplicate for this missing prompt field.

## What Changed

- Build the review-path repair disposition in its owning recovery
module, using the server instruction and fixed one-attempt bound.
- Project it into the existing canonical `dispositionRepair` field. No
new adapter field or execution protocol is added.
- Ignore arbitrary replacement instructions and attempt-limit values. A
pending repair keeps its instruction across a connection-pool retry that
changes the wake reason. Ordinary wakes without the typed repair marker
ignore raw instruction text. Existing legacy disposition repairs retain
their values.
- Add a regression across the real recovery decision, wake builder,
serializer and fresh/resumed prompt selectors. Update execution guidance
and the affected recovery maps.

## Verification

- Verified red before the source fix: two regression cases failed
because the instruction was absent; the sibling repair case passed. The
same cases pass after the fix.
- Passed 194 focused and safety tests across wake preparation, review
recovery, adapter prompt handling, and database-backed liveness
escalation. The connection-pool retry case also failed before its
correction and passes after it.
- Replayed the recorded incident wake through the fixed boundary. The
old canonical prompt lacked its saved instruction. The corrected
serialized prompt includes it with a 1/1 bound. This replay did not
execute a provider turn or change the source task. Private evidence
stays outside the repository.
- Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` after the pool-retry correction. Passed
`pnpm build` on final head `f38d65891c8d9f2b38eb76a8578e870debc2b1e6`.
Map checks and `git diff --check` pass.
- [Full
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40005890857)
passed on that head: 54 checks passed and two optional checks were
skipped. This includes the full test shards, typecheck, build, and
browser suites. The local `pnpm test:run` attempt was stopped after the
CI test shards passed. No complete local full-suite pass is claimed.
- [Apex
review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17353#issuecomment-6372160694)
is 5/5 on the final head, with no open findings. The first review found
the pool-retry case. Its regression and correction are included. The
branch has no merge conflicts.
- Test setup first required the plugin SDK build, then an empty
credential-history database boundary. Those setup errors are not the
claimed red. The temporary recorded-wake probe was removed before final
validation.
- Hosted follow-up acceptance is not run. The source task remains
blocked and needs a retry after rollout. This PR does not claim that
prompt delivery itself schedules a monitor or that every model will
follow the instruction.

## Risks

- This fixes instruction delivery. The agent must still save a valid
monitor or another waiting path. The existing bounded escalation remains
if it does not.
- The wake stays a normal-model repair. It does not become status-only
recovery and can continue useful work. Existing ownership, approval,
budget, pause, and monitor admission gates remain in place.
- No schema, credential, telemetry, API, model, or retry-budget change.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with diagnosis, code editing,
shell execution and verification. The exact serving model ID and
context-window limit 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 (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 (194 focused and safety
cases; full coverage passed in CI)
- [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>
2026-10-23 12:07:07 -07:00
..

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: baseline or operation-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 none only 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.