Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 9e721264e9 feat: maintain Storybook through a downstream feature catalog (#16046)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Storybook supports review of its production UI and proposed designs.
> - Its 223 story files have no consistent link to product capabilities
or record of component and mock provenance.
> - Old compositions can drift while they still look like current
product examples.
> - This pull request adds two maintenance skills and a catalog that
consumes the existing feature map.
> - The first audit preserves all stories and fixes proven fixture
drift.
> - Contributors can now find examples by feature and see what still
needs review.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

Storybook maintenance, feature discovery, and the accuracy of isolated
UI examples.

**Current behavior**

Stories are already centralized under `ui/storybook/`, but their sidebar
has 51 top-level groups. Production components, local prototypes, and
historical designs are not consistently distinguished. The old guide
uses manual coverage claims. GitHub searches found no duplicate
feature-map catalog change.

**Proposed behavior**

Keep existing story locations and IDs. Add a downstream catalog keyed to
stable feature capabilities. Record product status, rendered subject,
data boundary, and declared review dependencies separately. Use
dedicated maintenance and review skills to reconcile drift and report
evidence.

**Reason and benefit**

The catalog makes existing examples reusable without treating mock
behavior or old designs as production acceptance. The feature map
remains independent of Storybook.

## What Changed

- Add `maintain-storybook` and `review-storybook` skills with
contributor guidance.
- Inventory all 223 story files. Generate a feature index and provide
searchable navigation in the existing Overview story. Track direct
subjects through relative imports and local wrappers, including the
primitives demonstrated by foundation suites.
- Add a checker for inventory, capability references, duplicate IDs, and
declared-source drift, with eight regression tests. The parser test
covers real nested CSF files, export filters, explicit IDs, and play
counts.
- Preserve historical designs and classify mixed wrappers. Record the
initial audit and remaining parity work.
- Align the question-dismiss/send fixture with production behavior. Add
dismissal and confirmation-reopen regressions and repair the editor
selector.
- Exclude three exported fast-response fixtures from story discovery and
add the missing render-time callback spy.

## Verification

- Passed: `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs`, `node --test
scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs` (8 tests), and `node
scripts/check-maps.mjs`.
- Passed: validators for both new skills, `pnpm check:token-gates`,
`pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`.
- Passed: final Storybook build; nine selected browser `play` cases;
three fast-response render cases; feature-guide search/link navigation;
question-fixture reset on reload.
- Built-index comparison preserved all 2,208 original story IDs and
added only two new regression cases.
- Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui` (728 files,
8,176 tests).
- The full `pnpm test:run` has reported a 15-second timeout in the
untouched backend case `connects advertised Workspace gmail.read without
mutating definitions in authenticated`. The exact test passed standalone
without changing code, expectations, or timeouts. The remaining broad
run was stopped after this failure. The full suite is not verified.
- Visual comparison is blocked by the existing empty baseline manifest.
The managed-accounts API/DB fixture was not started. See
`maps/storybook-map/REVIEW.md` for exact scope.

## Risks

- This is an initial inventory and targeted audit. 188 suites still
require deeper state and fixture parity review.
- Review hashes cover declared dependencies. They do not follow all
transitive production imports or prove semantic correctness.
- The catalog requires upkeep when stories, mapped recipes, or declared
subjects change. Shared mocks still need feature-by-feature contract
review.
- No production application source, database schema, or upstream
feature-map contract changes.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex. Used reasoning, shell tools, file editing, and
Chromium browser verification. The exact runtime model ID and context
window 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
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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>
2026-10-12 17:20:00 -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, review date and source commit, 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: `partial` — agent REST and CLI routine create; default native
mutation binding missing, and call_api blocks routine mutations.
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: default native create path; verify using the real permitted agent context.

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 both indexes and cross-links together. 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, indexes, 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 product-map coverage.json, which records documentation scope.