Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 87d9386ae6 fix(ui): retain first-chat uploads through task creation (#16896)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent Chat lets a person attach files before the first message.
> - The first upload creates the saved chat task while the upload is
still pending.
> - Initial history loading used that new task ID to reset the open
composer.
> - Resetting the composer discarded its pending upload even when the
server saved the file.
> - This pull request uses the conversation's stable draft key for its
history readiness.
> - The benefit is a first message that retains its selected files and
their saved references.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

The first file upload in a new Agent Chat saved on the server but
disappeared from the composer. The initial history change in #16878 can
unmount the active composer when an empty chat receives its task ID. The
pending upload belongs to that unmounted composer, so the new composer
has no selected file.

**Expected behavior**

The same conversation keeps its active composer and pending file while
the task is created. Sending the message binds the saved attachment
once. Initial history loading for an existing conversation and ordinary
task still waits before mounting its composer.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Open Agent Chat for an agent with no saved conversation.
2. Attach a text file before sending a message.
3. Let chat creation finish while the upload is pending.
4. Observe that the file chip disappears, although the attachment POST
returns 201.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Reproduced by a deterministic real-composer regression on master
2e5bf12411. The existing browser case also
failed twice in #16893 before this prerequisite fix.

**Deployment mode**

Built from source. Browser acceptance uses a disposable local-trusted
server, embedded PostgreSQL, Chromium, and a simulated agent.

Related: #16878 added the initial history gate. #15769 covers durable
writes during disconnects; this change fixes an in-flight upload lost
during first-chat creation. Duplicate searches found no existing fix for
this transition.

## What Changed

- Use the stable conversation draft key for readiness and timeout state
when available. Ordinary tasks keep their task ID as the readiness key.
- Add desktop and mobile regressions with a deferred real-composer
upload. Check the same editor, file receipt, and one send after chat
creation. Keep coverage for deferred initial history on saved
conversations.
- Update the Agent Chat feature map with the first-upload journey and
its verification scope.

## Verification

- Red: both new desktop and mobile tests found that the editor became
null during the draft-to-saved-chat transition, losing the pending file.
- Green: `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run
ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposer.test.tsx --maxWorkers=2`
passed all 335 tests.
- The existing Chromium first-upload journey passed after the fix. It
checks the visible chip, saved attachment, no premature agent run, and
the attachment count after send and reload. Command: `pnpm exec
playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/agent-chat-projects.spec.ts --grep 'first upload creates the
chat' --workers=1`.
- The browser run built the shipped UI. Token gates, palette and
character checks, map validation, and diff checks passed.
- Earlier local browser attempts did not reach the assertion:
dependencies installed without lifecycle scripts lacked the packaged
PostgreSQL library symlinks, then an anchored title filter matched no
test. Ran the native package's setup, corrected the filter, and
preserved both setup logs. The deterministic component regression
supplies the local failing-before proof.
- An initial direct UI typecheck lacked generated Storybook catalogs.
The standard `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` generated them
and passed.
- Independent source review found no actionable issue. The readiness key
matches the parent thread key, and conversation changes retain their
existing remount boundary.
- Review found one documentation overstatement: the browser test checks
the attachment count after reload, while the component test checks the
submitted Markdown reference and receipt ID. Corrected the map and this
description to separate those assertions. No production code or browser
assertions changed.
- Current commit c6a2734311 has 55
successful checks and 2 skipped checks. Greptile is 5/5 with the finding
resolved. The separate Paperclip review is neutral/incomplete: it
inspected the changed code but its reads of the parent IssueDetail
source stalled. It reported no actionable defect. The independent source
review described above did inspect the parent identity boundary.
- Full current-commit CI is the repository-wide gate. No deployment or
live model was used.

## Risks

- A conversation draft key must stay stable while its task is created.
Agent Chat already uses that key for its composer draft and thread
identity.
- A different conversation key resets readiness. Existing conversation
and ordinary task history still use their initial loading gate.
- No visual values, API contracts, upload retries, or attachment
authorization changed.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context
window are not exposed by this session. Used tool calls, code execution,
and test-first regression verification.

## 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>
2026-10-19 16:11:36 -05:00
..

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.