Files
PaperClipAI/maps
Nicky LeachandPaperclip 79b2bf78dd Create agent records when onboarding names are submitted (#17005)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Core onboarding selects an agent and connects its provider account.
> - The current flow creates the agent record after authentication.
> - Setup needs a stable agent identity as soon as the user submits its
name.
> - This PR saves a paused setup record on name submission and finishes
the hire on that same record.
> - The existing sandbox authentication and approval paths continue to
apply.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Subsystem affected**

Core agent lifecycle, shared validators, and onboarding UI.

**Current behavior**

Onboarding creates the database record at the final hire step. Earlier
authentication and saved setup have no agent record.

**Proposed behavior**

Create a paused agent with a setup hold when the user submits its name.
Do this before adapter selection or authentication. Update that same
record after adapter selection. Reuse its ID on retries and saved setup.
Finish that record through the existing hire path.

**Reason and benefit**

Give setup a stable identity without coupling this refactor to computer
provisioning or a new execution backend.

**Breaking changes**

Incomplete setup now leaves an inactive agent record. Existing clients
can still create and hire agents without the new optional fields. The
sandbox authentication flow and API key support remain in place.

**Additional context**

Requested Core-only refactor. Related work: #15422 changes runner
defaults. This PR preserves those choices. No duplicate early-record
refactor was found in the issue and PR search.

## What Changed

- Save the agent when the user submits its name in both onboarding entry
points. Use a provisional adapter until the user chooses one. Reopen
name-only drafts at adapter selection.
- Add retry-safe setup creation and same-record hire completion. Keep
approval checks at final hire.
- Save and restore setup configuration in both onboarding entry points.
Show Finish setup for paused setup agents.
- Restrict setup changes to authorized board users. Block generic resume
until setup finishes.
- Add lifecycle, authorization, connection, and UI coverage. Update the
specification and feature maps.

## Verification

- Latest focused server run: 126 lifecycle and AI-connection tests
passed after the Apex fixes. An earlier broader run passed 301
lifecycle, instruction, adapter-validation, and AI-connection tests.
Earlier authentication, retry, cross-company, and direct-create
regressions also passed.
- Name-save verification: 336 tests across the wizard, naming dialog,
New agent, action-button, and wizard-step suites passed. Coverage
includes retry identity, repeated submission, closing during a save,
saved-model restoration, and a disabled process adapter.
- Shared, server, and UI TypeScript checks passed. The latest UI package
check and direct server TypeScript check passed. The server package
preparation command could not finish locally because Cargo is
unavailable; full build preparation runs in CI. Map checks, token gates,
and `git diff --check` passed; each pushed diff was scanned for
credentials and PII.
- All six onboarding browser tests passed together with installed Chrome
against a fresh throwaway instance after the Apex fixes. They include
numbered duplicate names, first-time Copilot without a connected
account, and Grok’s saved model. They verify early persistence in both
entry points, closing and reopening a name-only draft, same-record
adapter selection, sandbox sign-in, login reload, and failed-connection
gating. Provider responses are simulated; Core persistence is real.
- Regression coverage includes incomplete Copilot creation versus final
validation, Kimi settings through redacted responses, stale local
drafts, company switches during creation, saved environments, and
provider changes with personal/shared old bindings.
- Apex found five name-only setup gaps: numbered names, early Copilot
account validation, the Grok model default, same-name draft ownership,
and provisional runner restoration. The fixes preserve server names,
defer implicit account binding until hire, set Grok’s model, avoid
name-based reuse of unfinished records, and restore Auto for pending
adapter choices. UI, database, and browser regressions cover these
cases.
- Standard Greptile found a Grok provider mismatch in the new adapter
save. The save now uses ACPX with the Grok profile. Both the 129-test
dialog/setup run and a real-API browser regression passed after the fix.
The first browser attempt stopped on an ambiguous empty-roster button
selector; it now scopes the click to the toolbar.
- Moving the save point exposed a saved-model reset and timing
assumptions in the same-name and portal fixtures. The source choice now
preserves the restored model, and tests cover same-name recovery without
a second hire.
- Initial CI exposed direct-create compatibility, concurrent setup
effects, fixture assumptions, and a missing-fields assumption in the
provider-validation guard. These were fixed and verified locally. Review
findings were addressed with authorization, recovery,
credential-persistence, and restored-configuration regressions.
- The final desktop capture passed after host resource cleanup. A repeat
first failed before Core started because macOS had exhausted
shared-memory IDs. Standalone PostgreSQL initialization reproduced the
same error. Releasing only unattached control segments from this task’s
stopped test databases allowed the unchanged revision to pass. No Core
or system setting changed.
- Local database tests required port access outside the sandbox. Missing
declared development dependencies were supplied outside the branch. No
live provider sign-in was tested locally.
- [Full monorepo
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39522434236)
is green on `82b82fec189a172a885d4dd565ae2f4a18c73efc`. Standard
Greptile scored 5/5 with zero new comments (check `118969424903`). The
subsequent Apex review also scored 5/5 with zero new comments (check
`118972866331`) on that same commit. All review threads are resolved.
- The separate Superagent Security scan returned neutral/inconclusive
because its pinned merge-base checkout failed or timed out. GitHub
returned 404 for check and suite rerun requests. This is not a
successful security scan; the CI workflow and other security checks
passed.

## Risks

- Users can leave inactive setup records behind, including after name
submission alone. These records cannot run until hire completes.
- Setup completion touches hiring and approval boundaries. Tests cover
retries, company isolation, creator permissions, and approval snapshots.
- An uncertain credential-save result retains its new secret reference
for retry. A confirmed client rejection removes only credentials staged
by that attempt.
- No schema migration or VM provisioning change is required.
Agent-computer integration is out of scope.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository search, code editing, and
tool execution. The exact deployment ID and context window are 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] Apex Greptile is also 5/5 on the same commit as standard review
and green CI
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-20 18:08:57 -07:00
..

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.

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.

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.