DottaandPaperclip
8a3d2cb04f
## 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>
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.
Browse features
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. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
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 filename and entry-point ID, 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.
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. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
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 IDs and observable behavior/states.
- 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.