DottaandPaperclip
40b8075916
## 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>
Paperclip agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
The chat scenario catalog uses these same IDs for human requests and expected outcomes. Its scenarios retain the access boundaries here; neither a CEO role nor a planned scenario grants board authority or establishes a working production tool binding.
Use full capability IDs when referring to access contracts outside their file:
onboarding/company means the company capability in onboarding.md in both maps.
The feature index lists feature and
capability IDs; IDs and references
explains entry-point references and stable naming.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api is enabled by default, but explicit server,
company-allowlist and binding settings can narrow admission. It requires a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Connection-management reads support Standard, Ask and Plan; mutations require
Standard. Skill-test runs and nonstandard task-bridge keys cannot administer
connections. These gates supplement each operation's grants, resolved resource
and target scope, and responsible-user authority. See the
rollout policy
and connection authorization.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.