Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip d40f9ac377 fix: enforce first-task completion decisions and retain E2E evidence (#17940)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip lets people delegate work to agents and approve proposed
work.
> - The onboarding first task asks for scope, proposes a task, and waits
for a human decision.
> - An answer to its opening question supplies scope. It does not
approve a proposal.
> - Task creation already checks the saved proposal decision.
> - Native completion used the general completion policy and could mark
the onboarding parent Done without that decision.
> - This PR checks the trusted decision before completion feedback and
again when the native status is committed.
> - The first task stays in review until a saved human decision permits
closure. Ordinary completion and acknowledged refusal keep their current
behavior.
> - The Product E2E guard also retains closed scalar evidence so future
failures show which boundary condition was observed.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #17914. Profile compatibility follow-up to #17922.

**What happened?**

A native onboarding run can submit a valid low-risk Done result after
only the opening answer. The native finalizer then marks the first task
Done even though no human has accepted or rejected a proposal.

**Expected behavior**

The opening answer must not permit completion. A trusted saved proposal
decision must permit it. A saved rejection permits acknowledgment and
closure, but does not authorize new work. A later pending proposal must
keep the task in review.

**Steps to reproduce**

Create a server-owned onboarding first task with an answered opening
question, no proposal decision, and a valid low-risk completion
contract. Pass a Done result through native completion feedback, the
control-plane port, and the finalizer. Before this fix, the persisted
status is Done. The regression expects In review. Ordinary completion
and acknowledged rejection pass as controls.

## What Changed

- Share the trusted latest-proposal and human-response checks with
completion admission. Keep task creation acceptance-only.
- Refuse premature native completion feedback. Keep an already saved
premature result in review during finalization.
- Check the decision again under the existing task and run locks before
committing Done.
- Cover accepted decisions, saved refusals, forged context, pending or
changed proposals, and a real database race.
- Retain a closed scalar receipt when the existing E2E pre-acceptance
guard fails. Validate and display it without task content, IDs,
filenames, or raw rows. Preserve the original failure, blocked
dependents, and historical reports.
- Include the evidence module in the journey definition hash. Bind the
receipt to its exact failure code and check its closed keys against the
full type.
- Repair base-branch profile drift found by the full harness check:
include the active Copilot v66 fixture in image hashing and update stale
Pi version/hash expectations from #17922. Keep all older image inputs
and strict hash checks.
- Update the onboarding feature and agent access maps and E2E evidence
documentation.

## Verification

- Semantic regression before implementation: one failure and two passing
controls on PostgreSQL 18. The failed assertion observed Done instead of
In review.
- The local database uses an owned disposable container with an
immutable image digest. Actual migrations, feedback, control-plane port,
finalizer, and status commit run against PostgreSQL. A temporary test
adapter replaces only the embedded database transport because this host
has exhausted its PostgreSQL semaphores.
- Native control-plane suite: 55 tests passed, including 17 new
controls. Existing task-creation admission: 25 passed. Existing
completion feedback: 19 passed.
- Credential-free E2E support: 206 Vitest suites passed, 4,407 tests
passed, and two skipped. All 137 Node support checks passed. Harness
typecheck passed.
- The failure-receipt regression had 11 failed assertions before capture
was implemented. Two failure-code binding assertions fail without their
gate. Eight placement/binding cases first validate the receipt-free
control, then reject the misplaced receipt.
- The untouched base reproduced the three profile compatibility
failures. The narrow repair passed all 83 affected tests before the full
harness run.
- Private workflow preparation and credential-free onboarding preview:
nine compatibility checks passed. Ownership, recovery, evidence,
shared-contract and workflow compatibility: 77 passed. The actual
provider preview also confirms immediate success deletion, earlier
declared failure eligibility, limits, and zero retries without
credential access. Map checks and git diff checks passed.
- Required repository typecheck passed for the product fix. The combined
branch build passed. The local full repository suite was stopped after
repeated PostgreSQL startup failures; a separate initdb probe confirmed
host SysV semaphore exhaustion. No shared IPC resources were changed.
[Hosted
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40591020873)
passed the full database suites, typecheck, build, runner checks,
serialized suites, and browser shards on final head
`1ac4c23605a03bfd1f1f8a017b14ce29fda85f6b` (55 success, two expected
skips, one advisory neutral).
- Independent source review approved the product guard, atomic race
regression, evidence contract, and maps with no actionable findings.
Both automated reviews are 5/5 on final head
`1ac4c23605a03bfd1f1f8a017b14ce29fda85f6b`; prior findings are fixed and
resolved. Final CI is green and the PR is conflict-free.
- No Cloud workspace, provider call, release publication, or deployment
is part of this verification. These tests do not identify a historical
Cloud failure or qualify live onboarding.
- Local dependency installation uses the existing CI-generated lockfile
from #17811. No lockfile change is included.

## Risks

- Existing onboarding runs without a trusted saved proposal decision
remain in review even when the agent reports success. This is the
intended approval boundary.
- Decision changes can race completion. The status commit checks the
decision under its existing locks and uses the existing status-race
recovery path.
- A saved refusal permits closure only. Creation admission still rejects
it.
- Evidence readers reject malformed receipts and unrelated failure
codes. The version-1 key registry is checked against every receipt field
at compile time. Existing attempts do not gain evidence after the fact.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), ultra reasoning, through Codex. Used
repository inspection, code execution, and collaborating coding agents.
The runtime did not report a context-window size.

## 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 references)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket 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>
2026-10-27 17:07:50 -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.

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.