Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip c5251b4c0e fix(chat): retry fully recorded setup failures before dispatch (#18882)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Connected tasks retain their exact external request across failures.
> - Task Retry must preserve that request and prove that old execution
cannot continue.
> - A workspace setup failure can settle before any provider dispatch.
> - The chat retry guard accepted one specific validation failure but
rejected other fully recorded setup failures.
> - This pull request reuses the same strict server settlement proof for
those failures.
> - The benefit is one safe continuation through the existing queue,
with all source and execution gates intact.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #18803, #18845, #18852, #18853 and #18860. These changes preserve
workspace writers, bind completed preservation, or repair other
preparation and native continuation paths. This change repairs the
separate connected-chat guard for fully recorded legacy setup failures.
Search also found #18876, which repairs issue scope during deferred wake
promotion and does not repair this guard.

**What happened?**

A connected task failed during workspace reservation before provider
dispatch. Its source remained authorized. Task Retry saved an intent and
chat action, but the chat worker rejected that request as
`failed_chat_retry_not_authorized`. No successor was created. The old
failure had a bootstrap marker, a dispatch-only Runner profile, the
matching server error and durable measured settlement events, and no
runtime, process, output, result or environment lease.

**Expected behavior**

A deliberate board Retry can continue the exact saved input after the
complete never-dispatched proof passes. An unfinished earlier writer,
changed source, accepted result or unknown execution state must still
prevent execution.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Admit an authorized request through a restricted chat endpoint.
2. Settle setup before provider dispatch, for example while an earlier
workspace writer is unfinished.
3. Keep the exact server error and durable measurement events, a
dispatch-only Runner profile, and no execution resources.
4. Press task Retry after the independent writer and ordinary admission
gates permit work.
5. The original guard saves the Retry action but refuses to create a
successor.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Reproduced on master at `a00109aa35`. The branch is rebased on current
master.

**Deployment mode**

Hosted task diagnosis. Local proof uses real Express HTTP routes, chat
authorization, heartbeat queue admission and disposable embedded
PostgreSQL on macOS arm64, Node 26.4.0. Provider work is deliberately
prevented by occupied fixture capacity.

## What Changed

- Extend only canonical task Retry's existing strict pre-provider
preparation proof to generic server-settled setup failures.
- Keep exact result shape, dispatch profile, controller, runtime,
process, output, event and resource checks. No diagnostic message
allowlist is added.
- Exercise GitHub and Telegram HTTP Retry with the original sender and
saved input. Keep the failed run unchanged and create at most one queued
successor.
- Cover provider events, retained native state/results, modified source,
unknown result metadata, live controllers, process identity, source
leases and an independent unfinished writer.
- Document the guarded contract and correct the obsolete access-map
sentence. No new endpoint or agent permission is added.

## Verification

- Red before repair: both setup causes failed through the real
HTTP/chat/queue path because the durable Retry had no successor. An
initial retained-native negative fixture had an invalid foreign-key
setup; that fixture was corrected before the final run.
- Green: 37 focused integration cases pass, including 22 new
GitHub/Telegram cases and 15 existing pre-provider source and execution
guards.
- Current head `1bf69d20e02a049248ec378f087505563daeb9a0`: all 37
focused integration cases and full repository `pnpm -r typecheck` pass
after the master rebase. The full `pnpm build` also passes.
- Map structure, module boundaries and `git diff --check` pass.
- Full local `pnpm test:run` is running; all six chat shards passed and
the remaining server suites are progressing. This is not a full-suite
pass claim.
- Greptile and Paperclip Review both reviewed this exact head at 5/5
with no actionable findings or review threads.
- Initial CI passed all jobs except the unchanged Runner package suite.
Its `runtime-host.test.ts` approve-reads case failed before its intended
assertions because a managed credential home could not acquire its
loopback-port quorum. The exact case passes locally. A wider 121-case
check hit the same lease error in a different Pi case (120 passed); all
121 pass with one worker. The exact competing port owner is unknown. One
unchanged retry of only failed CI jobs passed, including the Runner
package suite and aggregate `ci / verify`. All current-head required CI
gates are green; the original failure remains in workflow history.
- The dependency setup initially missed the embedded PostgreSQL
package's dylib symlinks. Running its own postinstall helper fixed the
local setup before assertions. This was not a product test failure.
- This change has not been deployed. The original hosted task has not
been replayed with the fix.

## Risks

- Never-dispatched proof must remain strict. A bootstrap marker or empty
process fields alone cannot authorize continuation. The regression cases
retain contrary-state holds.
- The inherited session display hint remains history and supplies no
resume authority.
- Current connection, principal, source integrity, pause, budget,
approval, dependency and workspace-owner gates remain in their existing
owners.
- No schema, provider profile, trust policy, model or credential
permission changes are required.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code editing, tool use and
PostgreSQL/browser verification. This session does not expose a more
specific deployment model ID or 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
#` / `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>
2026-11-04 07:18:40 -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

Add entries only for substantial new features under the feature-map scope rule. Routine fixes, polish, refactors, performance work, and test changes do not require map updates. Correct or remove existing text only when behavior or access changes make it materially inaccurate; keep the correction local to the affected recipe or companion. 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.