Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 1a79c8bdc7 fix(runtime): honor provider startup budgets on sandbox resume (#16802)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their execution environments.
> - Follow-up runs reuse saved sandbox computers to keep their
workspace.
> - Starting a stopped or archived computer can take more than one
minute.
> - Acquisition already uses the provider's startup budget, but reuse
imposed a separate one-minute deadline.
> - This pull request gives resume the configured or declared provider
startup budget.
> - The benefit is that a healthy slow start can continue on the same
computer.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A follow-up run failed during setup with `ReusableSandboxResumeError`.
The saved computer became ready just after the host stopped waiting. The
environment had no explicit timeout. Its provider declared a five-minute
startup default, which the resume path ignored.

**Expected behavior**

Resume must honor the configured startup budget or the provider's
declared default. It must retain the same lease. Failed or uncertain
resumes must keep the saved computer.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Use a reusable sandbox provider with a startup budget longer than one
minute.
2. Retain its lease and start a follow-up run.
3. Make provider resume finish after 61 seconds, within that budget.
4. Observe that the old host rejects at 60 seconds.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Reproduced on `aaeff418cf72341c674ff3393cd94f40dc4855f6`.

**Deployment mode**

Hosted sandbox execution. The regression uses a local isolated
PostgreSQL database and controlled worker RPC timers.

Searched open and closed PRs and open issues for sandbox resume and
timeout fixes. No duplicate fix was found. Related acquisition timeout
handling already exists on the base branch.

## What Changed

- Use the provider's declared acquisition timeout when no explicit
startup timeout exists.
- Apply the resolved RPC budget to the shared resume/retry deadline
instead of 60 seconds.
- Add two deterministic 61-second resume regressions for declared and
explicit startup budgets. Assert exact RPC budgets, including the
30-second margin, and check that the same lease remains active without
replacement.
- Document the timeout behavior, provider-author contract, and
verification recipe.

## Verification

- Red: both new cases failed before the production change with
`ReusableSandboxResumeError`, caused by `Plugin RPC timed out`.
- Green: `pnpm exec vitest run --fsModuleCache
server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts` passed all 163 cases.
The final review follow-up also passed both slow-resume cases with exact
RPC-budget assertions (330 seconds by declaration; 150 seconds by
explicit config).
- An earlier full run passed the 161 existing cases but timed out in the
two new tests because their fake clock also captured database
scheduling. The corrected test restores real timers before lease
persistence. The complete rerun then passed.
- `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally.
- Started `pnpm test:run`, then stopped the duplicate serial run in
favor of complete parallel PR CI. The repository timing data totals
about 126 minutes for server suites alone. Full parallel CI passed on
the final head.
- CI attempt 1 had one unrelated failure:
`FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx` expected the asynchronous `Copied link`
confirmation before React rendered it. That test and component are
unchanged from the base branch. All six cases passed unchanged locally.
A single rerun of the failed shard passed; attempt 2 of the full
workflow succeeded. The timing-race diagnosis is an inference from the
test helper, not a claim that this PR repairs that UI test.
- Greptile scored the final head 5/5. Both review findings are fixed and
both threads are resolved.
- The consequential assumption is that provider startup may exceed one
minute. The test preserves the RPC timeout race with controlled timers
and uses real lease persistence. Read-only provider evidence also showed
the retained computer ready just after the failed run ended. The patch
has not been deployed to that instance.

## Risks

- A slow or unavailable provider may hold setup for its configured
startup budget instead of one minute. Retries still share one finite
deadline. Providers with no explicit or declared timeout keep the
one-minute default.
- Lease identity, company scope, backup validation, and replacement
decisions use the existing paths. No schema or dependency changes are
required.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. This session supports reasoning, tool use, code
editing, and test execution. The exact runtime variant and
context-window size are 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>
2026-10-18 22:04:23 -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.

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.

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, followed by one H2 backticked ID per product sub-feature. Each capability 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. Do not register entries or 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.