Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip db32bdf98b fix(github): recover review replay and preserve passive summaries (#17726)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start -->
https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/8/changes/paperclip/8
<!-- entire-trail-link-end -->

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - GitHub tools save review assessments and publish their confirmed
receipts.
> - A timeout before publication staging can leave an invocation with no
saved publication.
> - Exact replay must repeat only the authorized preflight and converge
on one publication.
> - PR requests also share an App-owned summary comment. Progress and
maintenance must preserve its final content.
> - A native turn can intentionally wait for an author without sending
another reply.
> - This pull request repairs unstaged replay and prevents queued or
passive-wait notices from replacing a published assessment.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Related repairs: Refs #16883, Refs #16284, Refs #16275 recover saved
publication receipts. Refs #17183 covers unavailable approved replay
output. Refs #17714 fixes a separate publication lock-order problem.

**What happened?**

Exact review retries can return null `begin_review` output or
`github_publication_unavailable` after an upstream read times out before
publication staging. Separately, response maintenance can replace a
completed PR assessment with “Review queued…” or a generic
missing-response notice after an authorized no-new-work reply. The
latter run can correctly commit a passive wait while its external
summary is still overwritten.

**Expected behavior**

Exact retries repeat only the authorized preflight. A saved or uncertain
publication keeps its existing recovery owner. Queued acknowledgements
preserve final App-owned summary content. A committed native passive
wait settles its current acknowledgement without writing a response or
treating an old summary as a new-run reply. Success before presentation
remains held until a durable decision exists; exact current-run
confirmed receipts can retire their placeholders. Genuine missing/error
responses retain fallback handling.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Hold a GitHub metadata read until an authorized gateway call times
out before publication staging. Repeat the exact request.
2. Publish a valid PR assessment. Send an ordinary author reply that
asks for no new work and no duplicate comment.
3. Commit the native `response_wake` with a no-comment server
presentation decision. Run response maintenance twice.
4. The base returns the invalid replay result or replaces the assessment
with progress/fallback text.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Replay regression: `41c42895fa862c586ff841f8c50200d93ffc83a4`.
Maintenance regression: the previous PR head
`c7553d2325df53d98d9febff7023ade4b1e704eb`. Both use real PostgreSQL and
simulated GitHub responses. The maintenance failure was also observed in
normal hosted use.

**Deployment mode**

Source checkout on macOS arm64 with isolated PostgreSQL 18, followed by
a dedicated QA qualification. No production rollout is included.

## What Changed

- Route exact `begin_review` replay through its typed owner. Repeat
unstaged preflight only with the complete request digest and no
successful invocation result.
- Preserve current policy, immutable assessments, unique action keys,
receipt recovery, and provider leases.
- Preserve a verified App/marker-owned final shared PR comment during
acknowledgements. New canonical assessments can still replace it at the
same or a new head.
- Project only a bounded server-committed native wait decision. Settle
the current main-PR acknowledgement without provider writes or a
fabricated current-run reply receipt.
- Hold succeeded native runs while presentation is undecided, including
the committed-before-presentation window. An exact current-run confirmed
receipt can still retire its placeholder.
- Keep missing/error fallback and uncertain publication checks. Update
the bot guide, execution semantics, maps, and real-database regressions.

## Verification

- **Causal RED:** exact begin replay returned null; exact unstaged
submit replay returned unavailable. The new real-database maintenance
test then reproduced the exact generic summary overwrite. Its first
repair also exposed an earlier queued-acknowledgement overwrite. Both
publication boundaries are repaired. Four additional ordering
regressions reproduced the generic PATCH while native presentation was
undecided; the corrected tests hold until the same row settles.
- **Local GREEN:** 196 complete GitHub workflow cases pass on an empty
migrated PostgreSQL fixture. This includes queued/running preservation,
both success-before-presentation windows, null/scalar/invalid decisions,
exact-current versus predecessor receipts, durable acknowledgement
settlement, repeated no-op maintenance, eventual genuine missing/error
fallback, pending writes and same/new-head canonical replacement.
Workspace typecheck, exact-head build, maps and whitespace checks pass.
The real database respects the actual selected-column projection.
- **Command:** `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL=<owned-postgres-18> pnpm
--filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'GitHub agent review
workflow'`.
- **CI/review:** historical heads
`c7553d2325df53d98d9febff7023ade4b1e704eb` and
`4d00d3af6f2ccbda8f38a98f81d392d82dd3c59c` had Greptile 5/5. Final
readiness head `2d267f1e4aa0b835a11aede97798fbd800d9cd96` passed
independent source review with no actionable finding and fresh Greptile
5/5 with zero unresolved threads; all 54 check runs pass with 2 intended
skips; Snyk is successful and the merge state is CLEAN. The dedicated QA
destination acceptance also passed.
- **Full-suite limitation:** the earlier `pnpm test:run` attempt
produced no final summary. Its retained log reports failures in
unchanged workspace-runtime tests and 15-second gateway-audit and
stale-question timeouts. Their cause remains unknown. Do not treat the
targeted results as a full local-suite pass.
- **Live evidence and limits:** normal native OpenCode/DeepSeek review
delivery published a useful assessment, inline finding and App check at
the exact reviewed head. A separate ordinary author reply delivered a
useful answer and settled. Those are ordinary delivery proofs, not live
injected-timeout proofs. A later no-new-work reply exposed the
maintenance overwrite. The final combined source
`070e9c4ead9341cd497b23f533a91bf194475e79` includes the exact
publication repair and passed normal review → ordinary author reply →
quiet destination acceptance. A normal current-head review restored the
legitimate assessment; the ordinary no-new-work reply then committed a
passive wait without new GitHub tools. The same 1,436-character summary
stayed identical while queued/running, after terminal settlement, and
more than 3 minutes 50 seconds after successful cleanup. Review rows and
receipts stayed unchanged, with no owner, live run or queued input.

The timeout fault fixtures prove replay and single-publication safety.
The historical first upstream timeout producer remains unknown. The live
board reads do not expose the raw acknowledgement action row: its
terminal cancellation and next-pass no-op are real-PostgreSQL fixture
proofs, while the hosted checks prove actual destination stability. The
hosted journey did not inject a timeout or pause the
terminal/presentation writer window. Private destinations, raw receipts
and internal task identifiers remain outside this PR.

## Risks

- Original and repeated metadata reads can overlap. The immutable
assessment, action uniqueness and publication lease must remain
authoritative.
- Missing complete request identity or a deleted completed receipt
remains held. The gateway does not reconstruct receipts or relax
approval.
- Passive suppression requires actual native mode/committed phase,
current source ownership and the server's no-comment decision. It
applies only to the main PR review surface. Uncertain current writes
stay held; other surfaces keep normal placeholder retirement.
- There is no migration, credential change, dependency or new retry
scheduler.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`) in Codex assisted with diagnosis,
implementation, tests, and source review. It used reasoning, repository
tools and code execution. The context window size is 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
- [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>
2026-10-26 22:22:57 -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.