Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 9e09d8f51f fix(runner): clarify native approval argument recovery (#18205)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - First-task onboarding requires a saved human proposal decision
before child work can start.
> - Native proposal tools reject interaction metadata placed outside
their advertised schema.
> - The existing rejection text focuses on question forms and does not
explain the misplaced approval metadata.
> - This pull request explains the field placement and keeps approval
recovery in its original confirmation or checkbox kind.
> - It also retains safe schema guidance in the run log so operators can
identify the rejected field.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #18025 for native first-task proposal recipes and #16889 for safe
native schema guidance. Related open PR #18105 changes separate server
API-client guidance.

**What happened?**

A native first-task confirmation copied `version` and
`supersedeOnUserComment` to the tool root. Both belong inside `payload`.
The runner correctly rejected the call before execution, but its
feedback described question forms. Later calls kept the misplaced field
and changed the approval into a question. No proposal card was created.
The run log retained only a generic schema error.

**Expected behavior**

Keep strict validation. Explain the nested field locations. Keep a
confirmation or checkbox approval in that kind while correcting its
arguments. Save the normal pending card and wait for an actual human
decision. Retain bounded schema guidance without storing rejected input.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Send an otherwise valid native confirmation with root-level `version:
1` and `supersedeOnUserComment: false`.
2. Observe the pre-dispatch `invalid_tool_call` rejection.
3. Move both fields into `payload` and keep `interactionKind:
"confirmation"`.
4. Verify that the corrected call creates one pending confirmation,
exact replay creates no duplicate, and child creation still needs saved
human acceptance.

**Paperclip version or commit**

The observed argument shape and initial regressions came from public
source base `c32e1ba6`. The repair is based on maintained master
`4a6f6a65`. Public tests use synthetic prompts and identifiers.

## What Changed

- Give rejected confirmations and checkboxes approval-specific guidance.
It names `payload.version` and `payload.supersedeOnUserComment` without
suggesting a question-form recipe. Other human-input errors retain
complete question-form guidance and stable question/option ID
instructions.
- State the allowed native root fields in the first-task skill and put
the metadata inside both executable proposal recipes.
- Retain the existing safe guidance in `semantic_tool_denied`
diagnostics. Keep the original rejection identity and
`paperclipExecuted: false`.
- Preserve only the exact bounded scalar diagnostic payload after
verified event admission. The rest of the envelope and all API
request/result bodies keep their existing redaction.
- Add a real native Codex transport regression and strengthen
advertised-schema, card replay, human-admission, persistence, and
privacy controls. Update the execution contract and onboarding maps.

## Verification

- Red: the native transport reproduced the malformed confirmation and
showed that the old hint omitted the metadata correction. A second red
confirmed that approval guidance still included the question-form
recipe. The corrected transport case now rejects before execution,
retains a safe hint, and dispatches one corrected confirmation that
returns a pending card.
- Red: both shipped recipe checks lacked explicit nested metadata. All
49 first-task admission tests now pass, including advertised-schema
validation, idempotent card replay, actual human acceptance, agent-only
rejection, and question-answer controls.
- Updated native checks pass on the current repair: 95 native Codex
transport tests with 2 existing ignored cases, all 32 provider-bridge
tests, and the schema-feedback unit control.
- API/case persistence regressions were red before the event-boundary
correction. All 71 affected port/redaction tests pass in a clean run at
frozen head `3be3a70f`, including the corrected envelope privacy
regression. The focused 16-test persistence/privacy group and server
typecheck also passed earlier.
- Full local `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck` pass at exact head
`3be3a70f` in a clean detached checkout with Node 24.22.0 and pnpm
9.15.4. Exact-head CI passes: [full PR
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40950360142)
and [isolated native Runner
readiness](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40950359835).
- The full local unit attempt recorded a 15-second timeout in the
unrelated Microsoft Teams 100,000-character existing-comment publication
case. That failure remains recorded. The exact isolated rerun passed (1
test; 1,814 unselected). The aggregate timeout cause is unproven. That
long local run straddled subsequent source edits and also observed the
two port regressions during their red phase; it was stopped and is not
final-head evidence. The clean affected-suite run above and current-head
CI provide the final verification. No timeout or assertion was weakened.
- Release-registry CI initially rejected the native test's compile-time
schema include outside the release crate's hashed input closure. The
guard was reproduced locally. The test now reads the current canonical
schema at execution. All 10 crate-cache controls and the real native
approval regression pass afterward; the cache guard and workflow keys
remain unchanged.
- Current-head Greptile review is 5/5 with no unresolved review threads.
All required checks pass (56 success, 4 skipped). The advisory Paperclip
Review remains neutral/incomplete after one normal re-review request; no
completed assessment or score is claimed.
- `cargo fmt --check`, map structural checks, and `git diff --check`
pass.
- Source and scripted-provider checks do not prove that a model will
follow the guidance. The original live onboarding attempt remains
failed; acceptance at a deployed revision is separate work.

## Risks

- This changes repair guidance and shipped instructions. It does not
make malformed arguments valid or supply a human decision.
- Diagnostic retention adds no rejected arguments, values, or unknown
input keys. The API receipt allowlist is unchanged. The validated-event
exception restores only the safe scalar payload; optional debug and
other envelope metadata still pass through redaction.
- The existing 512-byte guidance bound, strict tool schema, company/run
binding, idempotency checks, and proposal admission remain effective.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`) through Codex, with tool use and code
execution. The context-window size is not exposed to 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>
2026-10-29 15:48:37 -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.

The chat scenario catalog adds natural-language requests, starting context and expected conversational outcomes for the same capability IDs. It lives with Product E2E as planning data; a scenario reference is neither a registered execution nor evidence that a journey passed.

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.

Capability identifiers

The feature ID is the recipe filename without .md, such as onboarding. The full capability ID joins that feature ID and a Sub-features key with /: the company key in feature-map/onboarding.md is onboarding/company. Its agent-access-map/onboarding.md companion uses the same local company key. The feature-map index lists the existing feature and full capability IDs.

Each child page states Feature ID: `onboarding`. after its introduction or product-map link. In feature recipes, show the full ID beside the parsed local key: - `company`: `onboarding/company` — create a company. In access companions and Storybook verification guidance, keep the existing local heading and put Capability ID: `onboarding/company`. beneath it. These labels make the existing identifiers visible without changing keys, anchors, or ID generation.

Use full capability IDs in cross-feature references, Storybook annotations, tests, issues, PRs, and verification evidence. Both segments use lowercase letters, digits, and hyphens. Keep filenames and keys stable when display titles or navigation labels change; renaming either changes the capability ID.

Entry-point IDs describe a surface, such as web-wizard, and are scoped to their recipe. Reference them with a recipe link, such as onboarding.md#web-wizard, and record the capability exercised separately. Navigation section labels are not capability IDs. See IDs and references for examples.

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, and its feature ID, followed by one H2 backticked local key per product sub-feature. Each capability starts with its full capability ID and 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. Update the corresponding chat scenarios when their request, assumptions or expected outcome changes; use multiple cases for meaningfully different starting conditions rather than treating an API path as conversational coverage.

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. Keep the feature-map README's readable ID index aligned with those sources; it does not register entries for generation. Do not 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.