Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip 40b8075916 feat(ui): show scheduled task waits as Monitoring (#18624)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Task indicators tell an operator whether work is active, waiting, or
complete.
> - An agent can yield until a saved monitor checks CI or another
external result.
> - The task currently keeps the In Progress icon between those runs.
> - Changing the stored status would affect monitor admission and
recovery.
> - This pull request adds a read-only Monitoring display state with a
blue clock.
> - Operators can see and filter scheduled waits while execution keeps
its existing rules.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

Task status indicators, task collection filters, board columns, and
search facets.

**Current behavior**

A task that waits for a scheduled monitor shows the same In Progress
icon as active work.

**Proposed behavior**

Show Monitoring with a static blue clock when an agent-owned task has a
saved ordinary monitor and no active run, execution lock, review
participant, or active recovery action. Return to the normal task
indicator when the check starts. Preserve review, blocked, terminal, and
quota-recovery states.

**Reason and benefit**

Operators can distinguish scheduled waits from current agent work
without reading the task history.

**Breaking changes**

None to stored task statuses or execution rules. Task reads gain
optional displayStatus. Collections and search gain a separate read
filter. Existing status filters keep their lifecycle meaning.

Related historical work: #4396 covered a monitoring label exemption.
This change uses the saved monitor and a read projection.

## What Changed

- Add one SQL projection for task detail, compact lists, summaries,
relations, search results, and display-status counts.
- Show the blue clock in shared task icons and chips, task detail and
breadcrumbs, properties, references, list rows, recent navigation, and
agent task cards.
- Add Monitoring to task filtering, grouping, sorting, board columns,
and search facets. Prevent a drag from creating this derived state.
- Keep stored lifecycle statuses, monitor scheduling, checkout,
recovery, permissions, and agent status filters unchanged.
- Add database and UI regression coverage, full-page Storybook examples,
and product and access-map documentation.

## Verification

- Passed `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- Passed `pnpm build`.
- Passed `pnpm check:token-gates` and the map/catalog structural checks.
- Ran the new database suite on a disposable PostgreSQL 17 database. It
covers read surfaces, filter pagination/counts, queued/running checks,
rescheduling, completion, retained monitors, review, and recovery holds.
- Ran existing search, list, board, sidebar, task status, and filter
tests. Corrected board queries use displayStatus and eight columns.
- The full local `pnpm test:run` stopped in a chat integration shard: 12
failures (four timeouts and eight FIFO publication assertions). That run
spanned a rebase. A focused rerun on the current source passed all 21
selected cases without assertion or timeout changes. The original cause
is not established; this does not claim the full local suite passed.
Final-head required CI passed (ci / verify and ci / e2e, run
41488267209).
- Passed 82 tests for task API summaries, recovery precedence, search,
and optimistic updates; 54 tests for status cards, database reads, and
board moves; and 27 tests for blocker relations and recent-task cache
updates. One intermediate database setup hit its 20-second hook timeout;
the serial rerun passed.
- Greptile is 5/5 on d003ea672d. All
review threads are resolved. The separate optional Paperclip Review
ended early and returned neutral; GitHub rejected a direct rerun request
with HTTP 404. It is not counted as a completed review.
- Review fixes cover escalated recovery, is:open, optimistic status
changes, blocker-summary projection, and recent-task dedupe.
- Reviewed 15 screenshots from production pages and components with
isolated Storybook API fixtures: task detail/properties/breadcrumb,
list, groups, status filter, board, search/results/filter counts,
reference pills, sibling navigation, agent cards, picker, dashboard,
inbox, profile, watched status-card tasks, light theme, and mobile. This
does not claim deployed staging verification.

## Risks

- Read projections must stay consistent across full, compact, summary,
and search responses. Tests cover those paths.
- Monitoring is not a writable lifecycle status. The board does not
accept drops into its Monitoring lane or onto a monitored card. This
prevents a drag from implying a scheduled check. Move work into In
Progress through that lane instead.
- The read projection adds run/recovery existence checks. Existing
heartbeat_runs_company_issue_created_idx and
issue_recovery_actions_company_source_status_idx indexes cover the
company/task lookup. It adds no worker, timer, recurring query,
migration, or provider call. No production load benchmark is claimed.
- Older clients can ignore displayStatus. Existing lifecycle status
filters keep their behavior.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution,
and browser tools. The exact backend model identifier and context-window
size 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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-11-02 11:35:30 -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

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.