976cdc77ed
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task recovery preserves work when execution or tool outcomes are uncertain. > - Automatic recovery can settle its record while keeping replay blocked. > - The recovery-actions API omitted those records unless they held workspace files. > - Operators and agent tools could therefore see an empty recovery history for a task that still had an execution hold. > - This pull request lists those holds and shows their matching decision in the existing stopped-run notice. > - Existing stop verification, continuation, and file repair gates remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A cancelled or failed task can retain a settled recovery record with `automaticRecovery.replay: blocked`. The task remains held, but the recovery-actions API returns no action. The board notice also lacks that record's decision. **Expected behavior** List settled execution holds that still block replay. Let an authorized board user inspect the current action and run in Recovery details. Preserve the existing guarded continuation and required-file repair paths. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Stop a run whose outcome requires inspection. 2. Let automatic recovery settle its record with replay blocked. 3. Read the task's recovery actions and open its stopped-run notice. 4. Before this change, the action list is empty unless workspace recovery is required. **Paperclip version or commit** This PR includes current master through `66424362a85`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated and local deployments with persisted execution recovery holds. The original API correction and route regression are by Tao Xie (@TaoXieSZ). This update preserves those commits and adds the board inspection path, current documentation, and regression coverage. Related: #14840 describes controller lease loss. This change exposes recovery records; it does not change controller lease renewal. ## What Changed - Include settled execution reconciliation holds with replay blocked in the company-scoped recovery-actions response. - Read the matching action from the existing stopped-run notice. Show its decision under Recovery details, including when active recovery is empty. - Reject mismatched historical records in the notice. Bind history to the current action/run and refresh visible decisions every five seconds. Keep history read errors visible beside the current guidance. - Preserve existing run inspection, new-message continuation, and required-file repair controls. No new reconciliation form is added. - Update the execution documentation and both recovery capability maps. ## Verification - Recovery route suite with real embedded PostgreSQL: 80 passed, none skipped. - Notice and retry-client suites: 36 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed. This checks structure only. - `git diff --check`: passed. - Full `pnpm test:run` was started. It is not yet a full local pass. Initial database tests were affected by missing packaged macOS library aliases; the aliases were restored in this worktree's dependencies, and the complete recovery route suite then passed. - All CI checks passed on `09e4461e4d3a0960a4dc8bc270a2a10c628bf524`, including the full test matrix, typecheck, build and browser checks. Optional Storybook jobs were skipped. - Apex: 5/5 on the same head. Both review threads are resolved; the reviewer confirmed the existing guarded continuation design. ## Risks - The API response now includes settled records that still block replay. Consumers must distinguish a settled record from permission to continue. - Recovery history is supplemental. A failed history read keeps the current blocker and guidance visible. - The UI binds the decision to both the current action and run. It does not certify tool outcomes or grant execution authority. - No schema, dependency, telemetry, or runtime admission changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution, assisted with the board inspection and verification follow-up. The exact serving snapshot ID and context window size are not exposed in this session. The original API work is retained from Tao Xie's contribution. ## 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 (targeted suites; full-suite limits above) - [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: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Paperclip agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api requires operator rollout admission, a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.