DottaandPaperclip
9ef434fe79
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its feature map describes user journeys and their verification paths. > - The map already defines feature IDs and full capability IDs. > - The README and child pages did not show those IDs consistently. > - Readers need those IDs to connect issues, tests, stories, and evidence. > - This pull request adds a recipe index and displays the existing IDs. > - The benefit is clear references across the product and agent access maps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/README.md`, the child recipes, and their agent access companions. **What's wrong?** The README sends readers to Storybook to browse features. Child pages show local keys, such as `installation`, without the full `plugins/installation` ID. Readers must inspect the generator to find the full reference. **Suggested fix** List recipe links and existing IDs in the README. Show each feature ID and full capability ID in its child pages. Explain capability IDs and entry-point references. Keep the current keys and anchors. Related work: Refs #15288. Refs #16052. Refs #15983. No duplicate open PR or issue was found by title search. ## What Changed - Add an index grouped by feature area. It lists every recipe, feature ID, and full capability ID. - Explain how IDs are formed and used in issues, tests, Storybook, and evidence. - Add feature IDs to all product recipes and agent access companions. - Show full capability IDs beside recipe keys and below access and Storybook guidance headings. - Preserve existing keys, heading anchors, and generated ID values. Keep the latest upstream company capability in the index. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes for 34 feature families and 175 capability IDs. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes all 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` passes on this checkout and generates the feature indexes and overview inputs. - `git diff --check` passes. - A source comparison confirms that the README matches the recipe index. After removal of the added ID labels, all 68 child pages match the upstream prose and headings. - Full workspace checks were attempted: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`. They could not start because the local pnpm wrapper could not fetch and verify the pinned pnpm 9.15.4 release. This checkout also has no workspace dependencies installed. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` could not run because `storybook/internal/csf-tools` is not installed. The direct map and index checks above pass without that dependency. - Remote typecheck, release-registry, and full build checks passed. The first attempts of [server shard 3/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758430448) and [server shard 12/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758429932) stopped after their runners received a shutdown signal. The test steps were canceled. GitHub rejects the rerun request with HTTP 403: "The workflow run containing this job is already running". Five other CI jobs remain active. The next action is to rerun the two interrupted shards after workflow 39460473910 ends. No application changes were made to address these runner interruptions. - To inspect the result, open the feature-map README, follow a recipe link, and compare its full capability IDs with its access companion. ## Risks - Low risk. The change updates map documentation only. It changes no application code or ID schema. - The readable README index and child labels repeat source IDs. Keep them aligned when a capability changes. - Generated capability descriptions now include the visible ID prefix. Generated IDs, labels, navigation order, and verification fields remain the same. - Full local workspace checks and catalog generation remain unverified for the environment reasons above. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-6.1-sol`, with a 475,000-token context window and `xhigh` reasoning effort. The model used local file tools, shell commands, and GitHub CLI access. ## 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 - [ ] 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>
4.7 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Agent conversations and project handoff
A person can hold a persistent conversation with an agent, return to its history, and hand useful work into a project or task. The gated conference-room chat is a separate conversation surface.
Feature ID: agent-chat.
Implementation: agent chat, chat landing, conference room.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
discovery:agent-chat/discovery— find an agent and reopen an accessible recent conversation.history:agent-chat/history— send messages, inspect replies/files, and return to the same conversation.handoff:agent-chat/handoff— create or identify a project/task from chat and follow the resulting work.conference-room:agent-chat/conference-room— use the separately gated board chat without assuming parity with agent chat.
How to get to it (user POV)
agent-conversation
Open /chats, choose an agent, or use /chats/:agentRef and its conversation sidebar.
project-handoff
Ask for project work in Agent Chat and follow its created project/task links.
conference-room
Open /board-chat only when its conference-room gate is enabled.
Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Enable the applicable chat feature, use a configured test agent, and distinguish model replies from a mocked conversation fixture.
agent-conversation
Automated: chat landing checks recent-chat routing; conversation service covers persisted conversation behavior.
Automated: thread and composer keeps an in-flight attachment through first-chat creation on desktop and mobile, while initial history for an existing conversation stays deferred. The first-upload browser journey checks the visible file chip, server attachment, no premature agent run, and attachment count after send and reload. That journey uses a simulated agent.
Manual: In a conversation with no messages, attach a file before the first send. Confirm the same file stays in the composer after the chat is created. Send it once, reload, and confirm the file and message remain.
Manual: Start a conversation, send a recognizable request, and inspect its reply.
Navigate away and reopen the same history. Use /new for a fresh session within
the same standing conversation. Test an unavailable historical agent and an
inaccessible saved conversation; verify no cross-user or cross-company history appears.
project-handoff
Automated: chat project tools checks tool contracts; live model choice and UI handoff require a manual run.
Manual: Ask the configured agent to create bounded project work, inspect the proposed/created target, and open the resulting task. Verify the request context and intended project survived and the task produces a useful output.
conference-room
Automated: board chat gate proves route gating, not a live conversation.
Preconditions for this entry point: local_trusted mode and an installed,
authenticated claude CLI, in addition to the Conference Room flag. These are
separate from Agent Chat's configured-agent prerequisites.
Manual: Check disabled access first, enable in the disposable instance, then send and reload a conversation. Inspect the actual responding agent and persisted history; report this result separately from Agent Chat.
Gotchas
- Idle chat is not failed execution.
- See steering for in-flight messages and questions for interactions.
- An API tool test does not prove that every harness will choose the same handoff tool.
Storybook verification
conference-room
Capability ID: agent-chat/conference-room.
Scope: ui Storybook: Conference-room flag disabled, empty/history/reply, busy and explicit failure states. Production: Exercise separate BoardChat route gate, local-trusted deployment and authenticated Claude CLI; send/reload real conversation with responding agent attribution. Sources: Source: BoardChat.tsx, board-chat.ts. Tests: BoardChat.test.tsx, board-chat-route-feature-flag.test.ts