DottaandPaperclip
9077748894
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Pipelines was an unused experiment with its own UI, API, CLI, and automation. > - Keeping it leaves unsupported product surfaces and extra task-detail queries. > - Removing the experiment must preserve data that users already saved. > - This pull request removes the feature and keeps its database schema and migration history. > - Cases and Routines remain available as separate features. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Remove the unused Pipelines experiment across the application. **Current behavior** The experiment includes pipeline boards, stage settings, case automation, review queues, learnings, permissions, and CLI commands. Task detail also queries pipeline links. **Proposed behavior** Remove all these product surfaces and their implementation. Preserve existing tables, records, and documents. Ignore the retired boolean in older managed configurations so upgrades still start. **Breaking changes** Pipeline URLs, API endpoints, CLI commands, and `pipelines:write` are removed. Task detail no longer includes the old `linkedCases` field. The independent Cases API remains available. No database migration or cleanup is included. Related feature work: #7907, #9110, #10905, #11375, #13004, #14671, #16133. Related issues: #9663, #10310, #10312. This removal supersedes the feature; it does not implement those pending enhancements or delete their saved data. ## What Changed - Remove Pipeline UI pages, navigation, gates, clients, query keys, helpers, and unused design tokens. - Remove Pipeline REST routes, services, automation dispatch, task-detail queries, and OpenAPI discovery. - Remove the CLI commands, shared contracts, experimental flag, catalog entry, and permission defaults. - Remove feature-specific tests, tutorials, smoke scripts, maps, and Storybook examples. - Preserve database schema, migration history, and the reserved document key used by old records. - Keep Cases routes independent and cover obsolete stored and managed settings. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Passed: targeted settings, managed configuration, sidebar, settings UI, routing, and feature-catalog tests. A first sidebar run caught a shared Workspaces icon import; the import was restored and the sidebar rerun passed. - Passed: 40 tests covering Cases routes, OpenAPI discovery, retained Pipeline table constraints, and schema snapshot drift. - Passed: token gates, map validation, generated API metadata check, Storybook catalog validation, and 28 map/catalog tests. - Passed: isolated local browser verification of navigation and Experimental settings with Pipelines absent; Cases and Routines still open normally. Live GET/POST requests to retired Pipeline endpoints return 404, and the retired setting is absent. CLI help has no Pipeline commands. - Passed: 22 access-service and agent-default-grant tests after restoring unrelated permission assertions flagged in review. - Local full run: `pnpm test:run` reported one failure in the unchanged workspace-runtime port-allocation test. That test passed in an isolated rerun. The long local run was stopped after full CI passed; it is not reported as a complete local pass. - Passed: all 56 checks on `def9181f3a4491d95fca1d38e9739f5b821aae3e` (2 conditional checks skipped), including build, typecheck, test shards, and browser suites. Eleven interrupted CI jobs reported “The operation was canceled”; their one-time retry passed. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39255211006). - Greptile: 5/5 on the final commit, with the only review finding fixed and resolved. - Sandbox socket restrictions affected the first build/API test attempts. The same commands ran with local sockets available. ## Risks - Existing Pipeline clients must stop using the removed endpoints and commands. - Existing data remains in the database and backups, but the removed UI no longer displays it. - Historical boolean `enablePipelines` values are ignored. They cannot restore the feature. - Cases and Routines must retain their separate behavior. Targeted route tests cover this boundary. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, editing, shell execution, and browser verification. The exact deployed model ID and context-window size 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 - [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.