Files
PaperClipAI/maps
7b9334cd10 Draft: Build agent-ready design proposal system (#16875)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work.
> - People need consistent UI patterns to review and control that work.
> - The current board uses related layouts and controls with different
spacing, type, and behavior.
> - That drift makes it hard for a designer or an agent to build a new
page from a reliable reference.
> - Storybook can show the shared patterns and the states they need to
support.
> - This pull request adds design proposals, a local sandbox, and
reusable UI controls so people can compare the patterns in context.
> - The benefit is a clearer design system that agents can use to build
consistent UI.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Subsystem affected**

`ui/` — React board UI and Storybook.

**Problem or motivation**

Board pages repeat visual and interaction decisions. Storybook did not
provide a complete reference for task views, conversation states,
typography, toolbars, tabs, and light/dark colors. People could not
compare a proposed pattern with the running board in one place.

**Proposed solution**

Add a staged Design Proposals catalog with foundations, components,
layouts, and page specimens. Add an opt-in sandbox. Reuse production
components where possible. Include synthetic conversation states and
shared controls so reviewers can compare and refine them.

**Alternatives considered**

Separate static mockups would not show keyboard behavior, responsive
layout, or real component states. Rebuilding each page only in Storybook
would allow the reference to drift from the board.

**Roadmap alignment**

This improves existing board UI and Skills Manager surfaces. It does not
add a new control-plane capability.

## What Changed

- Added dark and light color references, typography and conversation
specimens, and component stories for buttons, tabs, toolbars, sidebar,
popovers, activity, and task lists.
- Added a local design sandbox with synthetic task conversation playback
and representative states.
- Shared collection toolbars and navigation patterns across task, agent,
project, routine, skill, connector, and artifact pages.
- Added the streamlined Skills tabs and a My Skills collection that uses
the shared skill cards.
- Restored saved-thread access during synthetic playback, kept connector
searchbox semantics, and updated reproduction checks after moving trial
stories.
- Documented the proposed patterns and added focused UI, catalog, and
browser checks.

## Verification

- `pnpm check:token-gates`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `node
scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check` passed.
- Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after
merging master. After the review fixes, focused UI typecheck, `pnpm
build-storybook`, 23 Skills Sources tests, and all 15 Storybook
typography browser tests passed.
- Focused task-thread and system-notice suites passed: 251 tests.
Connector Browse passed 84 tests; the connector, attachment, recovery,
and Storybook flyout browser journeys passed locally.
- A local full Vitest run hit one intermittent chat-channels integration
failure; that test passed in isolation. GitHub CI
[39347996059](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39347996059)
passed on the exact latest commit: 55 successful checks and two skipped
draft-only Storybook jobs.
- Greptile reviewed the exact latest commit at 5/5 with no new comments
or open review threads. GitHub reports the branch as cleanly mergeable.

## Risks

- This PR changes 206 files and exceeds the repository's 100-file review
target. Review by commit and consider a scoped split before merge.
- Design Proposals are staged references. Fixture interactions do not
prove API behavior, permissions, or provider execution.
- UI changes to shared controls may affect pages outside the proposal
sandbox. Focused browser checks and the full CI matrix passed.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact runtime model ID and context
window are not exposed in this session. The model used reasoning, code
execution, browser inspection, and local tests. Earlier branch commits
were also AI-assisted in this Codex conversation.

## 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 available in this session)
- [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 where applicable
- [x] I have either linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR
following the relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
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 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: Scott Tong <scott@scotts-mbp-m5-max.local>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-19 17:45:26 -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.

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, followed by one H2 backticked ID per product sub-feature. Each capability 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. Do not register entries or 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.