## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Task side panels keep live work beside the conversation.
> - Plugins can already provide agent detail tabs.
> - Those tabs have no generic way to appear beside the task that is
using the agent.
> - This pull request adds an optional task-side-panel declaration to
agent detail tabs.
> - The plugin owns the label, component and availability. Core supplies
the task's running agent.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Access to plugin-contributed live views from task chat.
**Subsystem affected**
Plugin manifest validation, slot discovery, and task side-panel
UI/state.
**Current behavior**
Agent detail-tab contributions appear on agent pages. A task cannot
offer the same view through a plugin-owned availability decision.
**Proposed behavior**
An agent detail tab can declare `taskSidePanel: { availabilityPath }`.
Core substitutes the running agent into the plugin-local path. A
declared board GET route scoped to that agent returns `{ available:
boolean }`. Available contributions appear in desktop and mobile task
side panels.
**Reason and benefit**
Keep the task and its live plugin views together. Preserve plugin
ownership of provider protocols and product behavior. Core contains no
concrete plugin identifiers, routes, labels or readiness rules.
**Breaking changes**
None. The field is optional. Existing contributions remain unchanged.
Missing, disabled or unavailable plugins add no panel.
**Additional context**
Related: #17111 established the agent detail-tab and scoped API
extension surfaces. Roadmap and related PR searches found no duplicate
of this extension.
## What Changed
- Extend the manifest with optional task-panel metadata. Validate safe
plugin-local paths and require a declared board GET route with
agent-scoped authorization.
- Discover and load only opted-in agent contributions. Poll their
generic availability responses and mount the existing components with
agent context.
- Add generic panel tabs, launcher entries, dismissal and inactive-view
removal in desktop/mobile task chat.
- Reuse the existing live-run polling guard so idle tasks with a healthy
live connection stop polling.
- Add provider-neutral fixtures, schema/authorization tests, task tests
and SDK/feature documentation.
## Verification
- PASS: 301 focused tests including the full task-detail file, generic
panel discovery, persistence, slot loading and manifest validation.
Regressions cover POST-before-GET route order, mobile drawer dismissal,
recovery without focus and the absence of the hidden desktop task panel
on mobile.
- PASS: UI and shared-package typechecks; production UI build; token
gates, feature-map and module-boundary checks; diff and secrets/PII
review.
- PASS on final head: all 795 UI files / 9,186 tests, and all 95
shared-package files / 1,038 tests. Commands: `node
node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run --project @paperclipai/ui
--maxWorkers 3` and the corresponding `--project @paperclipai/shared`
command with local socket access.
- On the final head, server shards 7/12 and 10/12 and workspace shard
a-1/2 were interrupted by runner shutdown/communication loss. GitHub
reported infrastructure failures; no assertion failure was surfaced in
the available diagnostics. The queued summary was cancelled, then `gh
run rerun --failed` successfully requested retries for only those three
jobs. They are currently queued for CI runners; the 50 successful checks
remain passing. Interrupted attempts are not counted as passing.
[Final-head CI and
retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40396870920).
- Earlier verification exposed an empty-panel rerender loop, which was
fixed. The sandboxed combined run also failed five shared port-registry
tests because it could not bind loopback listeners; the full shared
rerun with socket access passed. These earlier failures are retained
here rather than reported as passing runs.
- Full workspace typecheck/build were attempted with pinned pnpm 9 after
resolving the initial local package-manager setup. Both stop at the
unchanged Runner Rust step because `cargo` is not installed. Full local
workspace checks are not reported as passing; final CI must provide
those broader checks.
- No live provider or plugin-specific transport acceptance is claimed by
Core's synthetic fixtures.
## Risks
- Availability is polled every three seconds only while an authorized
running agent exists. Plugins own the side effects and meaning of that
read.
- A view uses the running agent's context. It is not a separate per-task
resource.
- Optional metadata adds no backend endpoint or permission bypass. The
host requires existing board and agent authorization.
- Reverting the optional contract and UI integration removes task panels
without a data migration.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with reasoning, repository tools and code
execution. The exact backend snapshot ID and context window size are not
exposed by 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 described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue
template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/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 any risks above
- [ ] 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>
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:
baselineoroperation-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
noneonly 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.