Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 98d17da1e2 Fix native monitor dispatch and finalization recovery (#16975)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Native runs persist their results and workspace before they release
execution.
> - A task monitor must wait for that settlement before it starts the
next run.
> - The scheduler checked provider status but did not check unfinished
finalization.
> - A timer could dispatch too early, then its old finalizer could no
longer find the consumed schedule.
> - This pull request delays dispatch and reconciles prior delivery from
server records.
> - The task can continue without repeating the provider turn or
removing a newer run's ownership.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A native run saved a yielded monitor result while workspace finalization
needed recovery. Its timer dispatched after the provider stopped. The
follow-up failed because the earlier run still held workspace recovery.
The old finalizer then retried `monitor_wait_authority_lost`
indefinitely.

**Expected behavior**

Timer dispatch waits for native finalization. If an older timer already
dispatched, the finalizer uses its saved scheduling receipt and admitted
successor to settle the old result. It preserves current task state and
ownership.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Schedule a task monitor from a native run and save a yielded result.
2. Leave native finalization retryable after the provider reaches a
terminal state.
3. Let the monitor become due. Before this change, the scheduler
consumes it.
4. Restore workspace persistence and retry the old finalizer. Before
this change, the missing schedule leaves it retryable.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Reproduced against master `34be1b831bcaba070264ae8d214ceffe6a8f9eab`.

**Deployment mode**

Self-hosted server built from source, with PostgreSQL and the native
runner. Related recent recovery work: #16962 and #16963. No duplicate
repair found for this failure.

## What Changed

- Scheduled and manual monitor dispatch wait for unfinished native
finalization. If the monitor expires during workspace recovery, the
accepted result can settle into the persisted schedule, and the
scheduler then applies its existing expiry policy. New monitor-wait
results still require an unexpired, unexhausted schedule.
- A narrow reader joins the run's server-issued monitor receipt to its
durable wake and admitted successor.
- The finalizer and locked status commit verify that evidence and
preserve current task ownership. They do not create another wake.
- Monitor delivery participates in assessment identity, so recovery can
replace a prior error decision without violating the decision ledger's
uniqueness constraints.
- PostgreSQL regressions cover saved-result replay, active successors,
wrong task or agent, missing receipts, unadmitted wakes, ownership
races, and failed workspace persistence.
- The execution contract and verification maps describe the recovery
boundary.

## Verification

- Red: the saved monitor regression remained `retryable_failure` instead
of `committed` on unpatched code.
- Red: the scheduler admitted a wake while terminal-run finalization
remained retryable.
- Red/green: two PostgreSQL cases reproduce timeout during workspace
recovery for scheduled and manual checks. Before the review repair, both
remain `retryable_failure` with `monitor_wait_authority_lost`.
Afterward, both commit, apply board escalation once, preserve the saved
result, and enqueue zero provider wakes. New completion still rejects
the expired schedule.
- Typecheck: `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- Build: `pnpm build` passed.
- Maps: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed.
- Review: Greptile 5/5 and Ponytail Paperclip Review 5/5 on the current
head, with no unresolved findings. Both reviews are static; execution
evidence is recorded separately above and below.
- Linux staging: the original repair passed 170 tests across monitor
integration, scheduling, status arbitration, and workspace finalization.
The expanded suite passes all 172 tests, including both new timeout
regressions.
- Live acceptance: deployed the original repair to the authorized Linux
ARM64 self-hosted instance. The stranded saved result finalized
automatically; the original task then completed through normal
admission, with its final answer persisted after browser reload. The
other original task was already complete and its external delivery was
verified without repeating it.
- The initial Mac regression run passed 68 tests, but three suites
failed during embedded PostgreSQL startup. A subsequent focused run
confirmed the host had exhausted its PostgreSQL semaphore allowance.
Linux verification uses isolated databases; the local failure logs
remain preserved.
- The local full test suite is not claimed as passed. It is blocked by
the same PostgreSQL startup limitation; full-suite CI passed on head
`8bc29d1b7783446f397b858e558083570a96bb66`
([run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39447913466)).

## Risks

- A delivery match must not grant new execution authority. The lookup
requires the original run's server receipt and a matching company,
agent, task, wake, and admitted successor. The locked commit rejects
old-run checkout ownership and permits no status effects.
- Workspace persistence must succeed before settlement. Its existing
failure path remains effective.
- The scheduler waits while a native finalizer is unfinished. Workspace
recovery must settle before dispatch; elapsed monitor limits transfer to
the existing scheduler recovery policy instead of stranding the result.
Neither settlement path renews a deadline or changes budget, approval,
pause, or provider authority.
- No schema, migration, credential, or provider configuration change.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The
exact backend 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>
2026-10-20 10:58:41 -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.