<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/247/changes/paperclip/247 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task documents hold plans, reports, and image evidence. > - Task attachments already have an image gallery. > - Inline document images had no gallery navigation or image links. > - This change gives each document a gallery that uses the existing modal. > - People can review the image sequence and share a link to one image. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Image review in task documents, including the side panel and Classic interface. **Current behavior** Inline document images do not open a gallery. People cannot move through them with arrow keys or share a link to one image. **Proposed behavior** Select an image to open the gallery. Use arrow keys or Previous and Next. The URL records its one-based position, for example `#document-report&image=2`. Reloading that URL opens the selected image. Revision links keep their exact saved content. **Reason and benefit** People can inspect a document's image evidence in reading order and share the exact view. No matching issue was found. The latest 300 open PR titles were checked for related document gallery work. ## What Changed - Add a document renderer that collects rendered images in reading order, including reference-style and repeated images. - Reuse the gallery modal with optional index-change and focus-return controls. - Keep the document owner in the saved tab identity when people switch between local and other-task documents. - Match explicit current-task document owners with local document tabs. Keep review and viewer parameters during gallery navigation. - Treat another Classic review receipt as a new request while image navigation retains the selected revision. - Make inline image controls work with a keyboard. Keep focus in the modal and restore focus on close. - Keep document, revision, review, and maximized-view link parameters during image navigation. - Fix a Classic revision-cache race found by the browser test. Recheck a pinned revision when the saved document head changes. - Update the feature and agent access maps. No new server API or permission is needed. ## Verification - Passed 119 focused tests for document galleries, the shared gallery, document rendering, the revision panel, and hash routing. - Passed all 3 Chromium journeys: desktop, mobile, and Classic. These use real uploads and saved document revisions. - The browser journeys also check explicit current-task owners, review parameters after reopening, other-task links after tab switches, and a second Classic review link after Return to latest. - Browser checks cover keyboard and button navigation, wraparound, shared-link reload, exact historical content, invalid positions, focus return and containment, scroll locking, and Escape, Close, and backdrop dismissal. - UI typecheck, token gates, map checks, and diff whitespace checks passed. - The UI production build passed in the browser harness. - Earlier browser runs found and then verified the Classic revision-cache fix. A later build exited 137 while the full test suite ran. The browser run passed after that suite stopped. - Full repository typecheck and build could not complete because Cargo is absent. The full repository test run did not complete within this sandbox. These checks remain subject to CI. ## Risks - Image positions follow document reading order. Editing an unpinned document can change those positions. A revision link retains the saved sequence. - The shared modal now uses Radix Escape handling. The existing gallery tests and nested mobile dialog journey pass. - No schema change or migration. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID or context window size. Used reasoning, code editing, shell commands, and browser automation. ## 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>
Paperclip agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
The chat scenario catalog uses these same IDs for human requests and expected outcomes. Its scenarios retain the access boundaries here; neither a CEO role nor a planned scenario grants board authority or establishes a working production tool binding.
Use full capability IDs when referring to access contracts outside their file:
onboarding/company means the company capability in onboarding.md in both maps.
The feature index lists feature and
capability IDs; IDs and references
explains entry-point references and stable naming.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api is enabled by default, but explicit server,
company-allowlist and binding settings can narrow admission. It requires a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Connection-management reads support Standard, Ask and Plan; mutations require
Standard. Skill-test runs and nonstandard task-bridge keys cannot administer
connections. These gates supplement each operation's grants, resolved resource
and target scope, and responsible-user authority. See the
rollout policy
and connection authorization.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.