Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip a2a6129ed5 Allow a new human intent to request tool review after a decline (#18742)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages work for companies of AI agents.
> - App writes can require a human review for each invocation.
> - Decline and Always allow are separate controls.
> - The gateway currently reuses a declined action across later human
requests with the same arguments.
> - A new request can therefore receive the old decline instead of a new
review.
> - This change uses the saved run and human comment to distinguish a
new intent.
> - The new intent still follows the current policy and approval gates.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

After a person declines an Ask first app write, a later request from
that person for the same write receives `action_declined`. The gateway
matches company, task, agent, tool and arguments across runs. It does
not distinguish the later human request.

**Expected behavior**

A distinct later request from the same responsible person can open a new
Ask first review. It must not execute the write or reuse approval. A
retry of the declined intent, including its rejection continuation, must
remain declined.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Ask an agent to perform an app write that requires approval.
2. Decline the proposed action.
3. Send a new request for the same action.
4. Observe that the gateway reuses the old rejection and creates no new
pending review.

**Paperclip version or commit**

The behavior is present on master `7b8aa60b6d` and in a retained native
journey. The focused parent control reproduces the matching error. No
related open fix was found in the scoped PR search.

## What Changed

- Only a rejected match can be released for a later human intent.
- Require the active run, company, task, agent and responsible person to
match the saved direct-human comment. Reject derived, deleted, untrusted
or system-authored input and invalid chronology.
- Preserve all other replay states, signed argument checks, current
policy, unresolved-effect guards, approval and execution owners.
- Document the distinction between decline and a standing policy change.

## Verification

- Actual matching-function control: parent fails; this change passes.
The control uses the unchanged owner body with synthetic database rows.
It does not claim real PostgreSQL or provider verification.
- 52 focused pure controls pass. These cover same-intent retries,
rejection continuations, foreign scope and actor, invalid authorship,
chronology and other action states.
- TypeScript 7.0.2 checks pass for the new helper and its owning tests.
- `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass.
- The existing gateway service suite has a new signed-action integration
test. It covers ordinary and reopened human requests. It requires the
old rejection plus one new pending request, a stable retry, and no
completed call. Each leaf prints one fixed success label after its
assertions so CI can distinguish execution from a platform skip. No
local PostgreSQL, app, model or provider execution was run. Current-head
normal CI41594912212 completed with48 successful jobs and1 expected
skip. Both real PostgreSQL leaves executed and emitted their
post-assertion markers; the owning job passed. Full typecheck/build
checks passed in CI.

## Risks

This adds one indexed run/comment read only after a rejected matching
action. Missing identity or ambiguous provenance keeps the old
rejection. Legacy and external comments without direct-human provenance
do not reset it. A new human intent is not consent to execute. This core
PR remains unmerged. Candidate native journey qualification is separate;
the original failed journey is retained.

## Model Used

OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` with reasoning, source inspection and tool use. The
host did not expose the context-window size.

## 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
#123` / `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>
2026-11-03 06:28:36 -06:00
..

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.