Files
PaperClipAI/maps/feature-map
DottaandPaperclip c32e1ba6da fix(onboarding): keep approved child task handoffs runnable (#18160)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages work through tasks, agent runs, dependencies, and
human decisions.
> - The first-task workflow asks for approval before it creates an
execution task.
> - File-producing work must run on a child task before onboarding can
finish.
> - A child blocked by its onboarding source cannot start while the
source waits for that child.
> - This change rejects that dependency during task creation and later
edits, and gives the agent a correction.
> - The shipped recipe shows the dependency direction and requires the
actual approved inputs in the child instructions.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

After human approval, an onboarding run could create a child with the
onboarding source in `blockedByTaskIds`. Creation saved a blocked child
with no wake. The parent could then wait for that child. A handoff could
also refer to input from the parent conversation without including the
input in the child description.

**Expected behavior**

The approved child can execute before its waiting parent. Invalid
first-task dependency input fails before task creation and leaves the
same command key available for a corrected call. The child instructions
include the required approved input and constraints.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Accept a proposal on a server-created first task.
2. Call native `create_task` with `status: "todo"` and the onboarding
source in `blockedByTaskIds`.
3. Observe a blocked child with no scheduled wake. Block the parent on
that child to expose the stalled handoff.

**Paperclip version or commit**

The regression reproduces on `f8484a9f8d1f68e9534fee4f29e00e716dc680f4`.
The repair is based on current master.

**Deployment mode**

Core native and REST task creation. The same server boundary serves
self-hosted and hosted instances.

Related: #18080 fixed remote delivery of the selected first-task skill.
This change handles the later child handoff boundary.

## What Changed

- Reject a task blocked by its authenticated first-task source during
creation and later dependency edits. Later agent edits also check the
locked target's server-owned onboarding parent, protecting a child
running under its own execution. Compare UUID identity in PostgreSQL so
alternate supported UUID spellings cannot bypass the check. The error
explains the correction.
- Add a native child/dependency recipe with self-contained approved
input guidance. Clarify the general `create_task` input descriptions and
update their generated contracts.
- Cover native and REST rejection, corrected retry, preserved valid
dependencies and replay, and an executable recipe with exact input bytes
read from the child's own context. Thread the authenticated run through
native dependency edits. Keep blocker corrections independent of a new
proposal decision.
- Update execution semantics and the existing onboarding map entries.

## Verification

- Red on `f8484a9f`: the new native regression received a created
blocked child instead of the expected rejection.
- Review regressions were red on the original PR head: uppercase,
unhyphenated and braced source UUIDs created blocked children; a later
child PATCH returned 200 and saved the reversed blocker.
- Review follow-up reproduced both native and REST child-own-run
bypasses on `75fa75a6`: the native dependency call applied the reverse
edge; the child's own PATCH returned 200. The regression uses the actual
authenticated child execution and an already checked-out task.
- All 95 tests across first-task admission, assets, and the full native
tool-authority suite pass. The shipped recipe is validated against the
native schemas and exercised through real task/dependency services with
disposable PostgreSQL. Rejected PATCH tests preserve existing
authorization and attempt-audit behavior and require no requested
task-field, relation or wake change. Compatibility controls retain
ordinary manual parent blockers, explicit board edits, other blockers
and empty-list corrections.
- Runner TypeScript build, generated contracts, capability inventory,
protocol manifest, and map checks passed.
- Server typecheck and all 95 focused tests pass with the child-run
follow-up. All latest checks pass on `f24509ae`: 55 successful checks,
one neutral review check, four skipped checks, and a successful legacy
security status. Both automated reviews are 5/5 on this exact commit.
- Prior-head CI failures are preserved: the Runner close fixture had
unconfirmed provider drain while suspension succeeded; its exact
fake-provider subprocess row passed locally with unchanged sources. The
browser outage test lost its title textarea before any outage write. A
bounded local control with a fully loaded composer passed every original
outage assertion. The prior failure is an editor-readiness race; its
exact asynchronous ordering remains unproved. No UI, browser-test, or
timeout change is included. Neither failure is counted as a pass or
silently discarded.
- The first `f24509ae` CI attempt had two interrupted jobs: Typecheck
and General server 9/12. Their logs record runner shutdown signals. The
server job also records lost runner communication. The same-head
failed-job rerun passed both jobs and the required aggregate. It reused
the other successful results. No source, test, or timeout change was
made for the rerun. The failed attempt remains preserved. Full
repository checks pass in CI; the local full repository typecheck, test,
and build commands were not repeated.
- No external model or provider calls are used by these checks.
Real-provider acceptance at this revision remains separate.

## Risks

- The new rejection uses the authenticated run and the server-owned
onboarding origin. Ordinary tasks, other blockers, empty-list
corrections, and already committed creation replay retain their existing
behavior. Blocker edits do not reapply the creation approval gate.
- Nonempty blocker edits perform two indexed identity reads; the task
lookup covers at most the run source and locked structural parent. Other
patches and empty-list corrections add no source lookup. The update
guard adds no parent row lock behind a child. Existing REST
authorization checkout and attempt auditing remain in place before the
domain mutation guard.
- The explicit input recipe guides the model. Schema and persistence
tests do not prove that a future model follows every instruction.
- The tool guidance changes the generated semantic catalog identity. The
maintained generated files are synchronized in this change.

## Model Used

OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex, with `ultra` reasoning effort,
repository tools, code generation, and test execution. The context
window is not exposed by the runtime.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used and stated the available runtime
detail
- [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 described the issue in-PR following the bug issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket ID
- [x] I have run focused 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 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>
2026-10-29 10:57:31 -05:00
..

Paperclip feature map

Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.

The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.

The chat scenario catalog describes how people might request these capabilities in conversation, including setup and permission branches. These are planned Product E2E journeys, not live coverage results.

IDs and references

Use the existing IDs in issues, PRs, Storybook annotations, tests, and verification evidence:

Reference Example Defined by
Feature ID onboarding The recipe filename without .md.
Capability ID onboarding/company The feature ID plus a key from its Sub-features list, separated by /.
Entry-point reference onboarding.md#web-wizard The recipe filename plus its entry-point heading. The local entry-point ID is web-wizard.

For example, report verifying onboarding/company through web-wizard. Capabilities describe behavior; entry points identify the surface used to exercise it. Entry-point IDs are separate from generated capability IDs. Both maps and Storybook use the same full capability IDs. Each child page states its feature ID; recipe bullets show the full capability ID beside the local key, and access companions show it beneath the local heading. Local keys remain unchanged for parsing and existing anchors.

Keep recipe filenames, sub-feature keys, and entry-point keys stable when changing display titles or navigation. Renaming a filename or key changes its references. The section headings below are navigation labels, not additional IDs.

Browse features

Use this index to open a recipe or copy its feature and full capability IDs.

Getting started and access

Feature ID Recipe Capability IDs
onboarding Onboarding and first work onboarding/instance, onboarding/company, onboarding/adapter, onboarding/first-task, onboarding/resume
access Login, invitations, and access access/login, access/invitations, access/membership, access/resources, access/cli-auth
companies Companies and portability companies/selection, companies/identity, companies/decision-models, companies/prompt-injection-prevention, companies/fast-responses, companies/agent-observability, companies/archive, companies/portability

Tasks and conversations

Feature ID Recipe Capability IDs
tasks Task creation and lifecycle tasks/create, tasks/organize, tasks/properties, tasks/discussion, tasks/completion, tasks/privacy
task-coordination Delegation, dependencies, and signoff task-coordination/delegation, task-coordination/dependencies, task-coordination/signoff, task-coordination/tree-control
inbox-search Inbox, decisions, and search inbox-search/views, inbox-search/triage, inbox-search/decisions, inbox-search/search, inbox-search/toasts
agent-chat Agent conversations and project handoff agent-chat/discovery, agent-chat/history, agent-chat/handoff, agent-chat/conference-room
questions-and-approvals Questions and approvals questions-and-approvals/questions, questions-and-approvals/dismiss-and-reopen, questions-and-approvals/confirmations, questions-and-approvals/plan-review, questions-and-approvals/audience, questions-and-approvals/governance, questions-and-approvals/tool-review, questions-and-approvals/continuation
steering Steering and queued messages steering/queue, steering/edit-order-discard, steering/steer, steering/interrupt, steering/stop-and-pause, steering/drafts, steering/approval-queue
documents-artifacts Documents, attachments, and work products documents-artifacts/documents, documents-artifacts/annotations, documents-artifacts/attachments, documents-artifacts/work-products, documents-artifacts/library

Agents and reusable capabilities

Feature ID Recipe Capability IDs
agents Hiring, configuration, and organization agents/hire, agents/grok-bot, agents/instructions, agents/organization, agents/primary-agent, agents/lifecycle, agents/built-in, agents/api-keys, agents/managed-agent-setup
runs-adapters Runs, harnesses, and model accounts runs-adapters/availability, runs-adapters/validation, runs-adapters/runs, runs-adapters/session
skills Skills and Skill Studio skills/discovery, skills/authoring, skills/versions, skills/policy, skills/testing
teams Team packages and installation teams/discovery, teams/preview, teams/install, teams/configuration

Projects and execution

Feature ID Recipe Capability IDs
projects Projects and repositories projects/lifecycle, projects/task-context, projects/repositories, projects/defaults, projects/privacy
goals Goals and work alignment goals/hierarchy, goals/alignment, goals/navigation
workspaces Workspaces, services, and files workspaces/binding, workspaces/provisioning, workspaces/services, workspaces/files-git, workspaces/closure
execution-environments Execution environments execution-environments/configuration, execution-environments/capabilities, execution-environments/probe, execution-environments/assignment, execution-environments/images
recovery Recovery recovery/diagnosis, recovery/bounded-continuation, recovery/source-action, recovery/exhaustion, recovery/workspace, recovery/unknown-outcome, recovery/user-continuation, recovery/reconnect

Apps, channels, and extensions

Feature ID Recipe Capability IDs
connection-setup Connection setup connection-setup/catalog, connection-setup/identity-and-access, connection-setup/credentials, connection-setup/handoff, connection-setup/draft-recovery, connection-setup/task-request, connection-setup/channel-setup, connection-setup/failure
assistant-connections Assistant connections (MCP) assistant-connections/setup, assistant-connections/consent, assistant-connections/device-login, assistant-connections/client-use, assistant-connections/revocation
app-permissions App access and action permissions app-permissions/agent-access, app-permissions/action-policy, app-permissions/catalog-change, app-permissions/test-action, app-permissions/account-maintenance
chat-channels External chat and email chat-channels/providers, chat-channels/identity, chat-channels/conversation, chat-channels/attachments, chat-channels/lifecycle, chat-channels/outbound-email
gateways-profiles Tool gateways and access profiles gateways-profiles/gateway, gateways-profiles/profiles, gateways-profiles/client-connect, gateways-profiles/tokens, gateways-profiles/activity
secrets Secrets and proposals secrets/company-secrets, secrets/user-secrets, secrets/proposals, secrets/vault-import, secrets/runtime-delivery
plugins Plugins plugins/installation, plugins/configuration, plugins/contributions, plugins/lifecycle

Automation and structured work

Feature ID Recipe Capability IDs
routines Routines, schedules, and triggers routines/definition, routines/triggers, routines/run-now, routines/history, routines/management
cases Cases cases/browse, cases/structure, cases/history, cases/task-links, cases/handoffs
status-cards Status cards status-cards/authoring, status-cards/generation, status-cards/inspection, status-cards/archive

Oversight and operation

Feature ID Recipe Capability IDs
budgets-costs Costs and budgets budgets-costs/cost-reporting, budgets-costs/budgets, budgets-costs/incidents, budgets-costs/resolution, budgets-costs/subscriptions, budgets-costs/accounting-recovery
activity Dashboards and audit trails activity/overview, activity/activity, activity/runs, activity/routine-audit, activity/timeline, activity/agent-commentary
navigation-preferences Navigation, profile, and announcements navigation-preferences/navigation, navigation-preferences/preferences, navigation-preferences/profile, navigation-preferences/announcements, navigation-preferences/fallbacks, navigation-preferences/command-palette
instance-operations Instance operations instance-operations/install-update, instance-operations/server-service, instance-operations/configuration, instance-operations/diagnostics, instance-operations/backup, instance-operations/runtime-setup
cli-operations CLI/API and local worktrees cli-operations/context, cli-operations/domain-commands, cli-operations/outputs, cli-operations/run-controls, cli-operations/worktree-instances, cli-operations/feedback-export

Contributor surfaces

Feature ID Recipe Capability IDs
developer-labs Developer previews and diagnostic labs developer-labs/design, developer-labs/interaction-labs, developer-labs/performance, developer-labs/route-gates

Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.

Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the Storybook guide. Recipes are discovered automatically from their navigation metadata; generation does not depend on this high-level index.

Before driving a journey

  1. Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
  2. Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
  3. Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
  4. Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
  5. Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.

For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.

Evidence contract

Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature ID, full capability IDs and entry-point ID (for example, onboarding/company through web-wizard), plus the recipe link, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result, command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant, without secrets.

A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.

Inventory and remaining depth

The generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested. Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations describe documentation scope, not runtime health.

Maintaining the reference

The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health. Product E2E reports reuse these capability IDs through the journey associations. Their coverage view shows which scenarios in a campaign are linked to each capability and the associated test results. An association or passing scenario does not certify the whole capability; unselected and unmapped journeys remain distinct.

When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior and that local references still exist. Keep the same-named agent access companion and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks; follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.

Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:

---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---

The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. Discovery uses the recipe and companion; keep the readable ID index above aligned when features or capability IDs change.

Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and has Scope (ui, cli, or browser), Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API. The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.

After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:

  1. Sub-features — stable backticked local keys, full capability IDs, and observable behavior/states, such as - `company`: `onboarding/company` — create a company.
  2. How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
  3. Driving it with — starts with Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, with Automated: and Manual: paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly.
  4. Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.

New or updated entries follow Poteto's feature-map examples. Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by Omnigent's feature map. Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.