<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/175/changes/paperclip/175 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators configure each agent through several settings tabs. > - Operators also need one complete, editable configuration document. > - The document must retain each resource service's access and validation rules. > - This pull request defines the `paperclip/v1` Agent YAML format and adds an Advanced editor. > - The editor previews changes, rejects stale core writes, and explains partial saves. > - Operators can edit agent settings in one place and verify the saved state after reload. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #2219. Related settings work: #10974. **Problem or motivation** Agent configuration spans profile, runtime, instructions, skills, tools, channels, permissions, secrets, keys, and revision history. Operators cannot inspect and edit those settings as one versioned YAML document. **Proposed solution** Add an Advanced agent tab with a YAML editor. Define a shared document schema. Read and write resources through their existing APIs. Separate editable settings, explicit commands, and read-only observed state. **Alternatives considered** A raw agent-row editor would omit related resources. A generic database update would bypass resource ownership. The editor therefore uses the existing resource contracts and records partial results when a later request fails. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the shipped agent configuration capability. It relates to easy AGENTS.md configuration, multi-harness teams, governed tool access, and secrets management. Stored credentials remain redacted. This format is an editable settings view; it does not add company portability or provider consent. ## What Changed - Add the `paperclip/v1` Agent document schema and format documentation. - Add the Advanced route, sidebar entry, YAML editor, validation, change summary, save progress, and reload recovery. - Cover core settings, instruction files, skill pins, tool installs/profiles/policies, channels, permissions, secret operations, API keys, and revision restore. - Add private-keyed configuration revisions checked under the agent write lock. Read the current key through its owner so file-based rotation does not require restarting the server. Preserve unchanged secret markers at their original paths. - Retain drafts and returned credentials after partial saves. Require reload before retrying commands. Prevent duplicate submissions. Keep new key tokens visible through rename and disable saves with an empty change plan. - Send only changed channel settings. Require explicit intent for shared profile edits. Load destination instruction files when changing their location. - Update Storybook fixtures, verification maps, and regression tests. Add browser acceptance through real APIs and PostgreSQL. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - The focused UI suite passes all 50 tests. The API/revision helper suites pass all 93 tests. - All 65 lifecycle tests pass with a dedicated PostgreSQL database. They exercise real row locks, redaction, revision history, audit, and company access. - All six browser acceptance cases pass. They check saved settings and clears, secret redaction, key creation/revocation, stale drafts, lost-response recovery, instruction relocation, revision restore, and key-token retention through rename. The tests use real resource APIs and storage. The MCP target uses the existing local provider fixture. No model run or provider login is claimed. - Signing-key regressions cover both environment changes and real in-place key-file rotation. The protected database save/fencing cases pass after removing the cache. A local measurement of 1,000 file-backed revision calculations took 48 ms. - `pnpm check:token-gates`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and Storybook catalog checks pass. - The full [PR CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40725425470) passes on `34ed97bbf9`: all 48 jobs, including all eight browser shards. Greptile is 5/5 on this commit, with no unresolved review threads. This final commit refreshes CI after a runner-routing fallback; its source tree matches `fb4cf488cf`. - Paperclip Review and Superagent Security Scan ended neutral because their external agents did not complete a valid assessment/receipt. Superagent passed on `fb4cf488cf`, which has the identical source tree. One request to retry the final scan returned HTTP 404. Neither check reports a code finding. - The local full-suite attempt was blocked by host System V semaphore exhaustion. Acceptance and lifecycle verification used an isolated PostgreSQL 18 container. Earlier CI runners were interrupted. A local combined run hit hook/test timeouts; the full 88-test route file passed after the builds finished. The final full CI run passes. Earlier failure logs and browser traces remain retained outside the repository. To run the browser regression: ```sh pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/agent-configuration.spec.ts ``` ## Risks - Multi-resource saves are sequential. Earlier operations can remain saved if a later operation fails. The editor reports the completed steps and requires reload. - Core settings and managed instruction files have atomic revision/hash checks. Other unversioned resource writes and external supporting files retain a race window after preflight. - Shared profile definitions affect other bindings. The editor requires `updateSharedDefinition: true` for those edits. - The editor follows native service normalization and experimental settings. Canonical reload can add generated access profiles or mask environment values. - New editor dependencies require the repository's normal automated lockfile update. This pull request does not edit the lockfile or add a database migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact current model version was not exposed. The work used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser automation. Earlier work in this chat used the configured Codex model before a model switch; its exact model ID and context window were not exposed. The current context window size is also not exposed. ## 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 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:
baselineoroperation-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
noneonly 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.