Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 8a3d2cb04f fix(recovery): avoid recursive holds for undispatched waits (#16894)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work.
> - Queue admission must stop work while a previous execution needs
recovery.
> - The final dispatch gate can cancel a queued run before it starts.
> - Legacy recovery treats this known wait as an unknown provider
outcome and creates another hold.
> - The extra hold can survive repair of the original execution and
leave saved messages stuck.
> - This pull request uses one database proof to prevent the extra
incident and recognize old false holds.
> - Saved input can then pass through normal admission with the original
work and safety gates intact.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #15483.

**What happened?**

The dispatcher writes an `execution_reconciliation_required`
cancellation when an existing recovery hold denies a queued run. No
runtime is selected and no provider starts. Legacy recovery later
creates a `legacy_execution_requires_reconciliation` action for that
cancelled admission. Its settled `replay: blocked` record remains an
effective hold after the real source recovery finishes. The task has
saved messages but no eligible Retry or Continue action.

**Expected behavior**

A verified admission denial stays a wait. It must not create another
provider-outcome incident. Existing false incidents must stop blocking
after the server verifies their recorded source. Real execution,
uncertain outcomes and file recovery stay held. The harness determines
these infrastructure facts; the user does not certify them in a form.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Persist a queued-run gate cancellation with its task-bound
`executionWait` receipt and no execution authority or resource evidence.
2. Run legacy reconciliation. On the old code, it creates a second
incident.
3. Persist the old incident as resolved with replay blocked, then clear
the original source hold.
4. Restart queue recovery with saved user messages. On the old code, no
successor is admitted.

Related work: #15965 covers other pre-start dispatch cancellations but
explicitly excludes this existing-hold code and leaves historical holds
unchanged. #16634 covers stale-cancel classification and queue drain,
without re-evaluating historical effective holds. #15383 covers an
operator Stop during conversation startup. This change addresses the
existing-hold receipt and its persisted false incident; it does not copy
those broader changes.

## What Changed

- Add one database proof for a legacy admission denied by an existing
execution hold. Require the exact dispatcher receipt, matching task
identity, no runtime or process claim, no lease or finalization
coordinator, and no execution events.
- Use the proof before legacy recovery creates an incident and when it
computes effective historical holds. Keep the old audit rows.
- Preserve source file obligations and the original recovery action.
Keep the normal queue, pause, ownership, company and budget checks.
- Add real PostgreSQL regressions for incident prevention, old state,
concurrent queue recovery, message order, conflicting evidence and scope
boundaries.
- Update the execution contract and both recovery maps.

## Verification

- Red: the regression on unfixed source fails on incident
classification, historical hold projection and actual periodic
saved-message admission. The other 24 safety cases pass.
- Green: all 27 new database cases pass. Two safety assertions were
aligned with the existing contract: daily limits stop dispatch after
queue promotion; a human comment can intentionally reopen a terminal
task. The final regression checks the real daily dispatch gate and agent
pause.
- Existing `explicit-native-continuation.test.ts`: 255 tests pass.
Existing legacy recovery and PostgreSQL dispatcher suites: 61 tests
pass.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and
`git diff --check` pass.
- GitHub PR CI run `39313204660` passed on
`ef6009e656b7c9b4c788480dce322874565960ac`. All 54 successful check-runs
and the Snyk status are green. Two optional Storybook checks were
skipped. The independent Paperclip Review completed with a neutral check
and a 5/5 assessment with no findings. Greptile also reports 5/5 on the
same commit. There are no unresolved review threads.
- `pnpm test:run` is still running locally. Its overall result is
pending; no full local suite pass is claimed. The exact-head GitHub CI
suite passed.
- A read-only probe of an affected hosted task verifies the same
database proof and projects no false blocker with the working source. No
live rows were changed. Deployment and a real resumed provider run
remain unverified.

## Risks

- An incorrect exclusion could admit work with uncertain effects. The
proof fails closed on missing receipts, source mismatches,
runtime/process ownership, any retained lease, coordinator, execution
event or file obligation. Real upstream file recovery remains blocking
in the regression.
- The effective-hold query adds indexed existence checks scoped to the
recorded run and company. It makes no provider calls and performs no
database repair writes.
- Historical audit records keep their recorded outcome. Only their
effective blocking status changes when the server can prove the
admission never ran.
- No schema, permission, credential or UI form changes are included.
Live recovery still needs verification after rollout.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, model ID `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, tool use and code
execution.

## 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 15:26:39 -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.