DottaandPaperclip
f7ad1dc7ca
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people assign work to AI agents and inspect the result. > - A task can use repositories from more than one project. > - Remote workspace preparation treated every additional project as a read-only source. > - This rejected valid Git repositories before the provider started, even when no source was read-only. > - The task page then hid the preparation reason behind a generic failed-attempt notice. > - This pull request prepares authorized repositories as writable task copies and shows redacted workspace validation errors. > - People can work across both projects and see the reason if folder preparation fails. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A remote task with a selected Git-backed project and another mentioned Git-backed project failed before provider execution. It reported `remote_workspace_readonly_sources_unsupported`. Neither project had a read-only setting. The task notice showed only that the attempt failed. **Expected behavior** Each attached repository should be writable inside the task workspace. This should preserve source access checks and saved work. A workspace validation failure should explain its cause on the task page. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure remote workspace storage and a native sandbox environment. 2. Select a Git-backed project for a task. 3. Mention another authorized Git-backed project in the task. 4. Start the task. Preparation rejects the additional source before it starts the provider. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against `dc9f387edc`, before this change. **Deployment mode** Managed remote workspace storage. Local regression checks use disposable PostgreSQL and independent filesystem processes. Related merged work: Refs #18403 and #18504. Those changes established remote storage and metadata-only references. They still reject configured cross-project repositories. No duplicate writable-repository repair was found. Refs #18774 for the test-only retention-fixture repair reused to unblock CI. ## What Changed - Add every configured Git repository of an authorized referenced project to `.paperclip-repositories/` as an editable task copy. - Retain saved paths, refs, pins and files. Recheck retained project access and source trust. Keep explicit read-only, local-source import and remote feature gates. - Keep committed snapshot repository coverage separate from later requests. Honor configured default refs, resolve remote branch names, and publish secondary checkouts only after checkout succeeds. Share configured-ref resolution between root and attached-repository scripts. - Include redacted workspace validation messages in the task interruption projection and existing failure notice. Preserve Retry permissions and render messages as plain text. Explain retained-folder access and trust denials while preserving the dedicated low-trust project-access path. - Add source, authorization, redaction, UI and save/restore regressions. Update the implementation contract and workspace maps. - Reuse the reviewed test-only repair from #18774. Batch the shared-workspace history fixture, verify its complete privacy-source map, and drain owned test bodies before cleanup. Production retention behavior is unchanged. ## Verification - Red before repair: four source-resolution cases failed with the reported read-only error. The task-error projection test also failed because it omitted the cause. - Green: 49 source and transport tests, 16 task projection and redaction tests, and 10 UI tests. The assembled preparation check passes. All 48 remote workspace lifecycle tests pass. The full preparation suite passed all 126 assertions but its cleanup hook exceeded 30 seconds. The unchanged base reproduces the same cleanup timeout with all 126 assertions passing. The focused preparation check finishes cleanly. - The real PostgreSQL/Git lifecycle checks cover both first-turn and later project attachments. They verify the configured release branch, saved edits, replacement allocations, unchanged source folders, committed archive contents, and released writers. - Review regressions were red before repair: the default ref became null, later attachment failed during restore, non-default remote branch checkout failed, and invalid secondary refs left partial checkouts. They now pass. - The local browser shows the workspace validation explanation and Retry action. The fixture uses a saved failed run; this proves the error display, not a successful live sandbox run. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. Map, module-boundary and token checks pass. - A local two-turn acceptance probe repeated at `17ed67eaa7` used real Codex CLI 0.165.0, `gpt-6-astra`, and `xhigh` effort. Codex wrote files in both task repositories. The services saved them, removed the first allocation and its Git sources, restored another allocation, and Codex read the saved files and wrote a follow-up in both folders. This uses the real source resolver and persistence services with a local command-runner stand-in for sandbox transport. It does not qualify Daytona, managed subscription forwarding, or the original task. The first probe waited for stdin; closing the test harness pipe fixed that setup error before provider work. - `pnpm test:run` passed the first chat shard, then failed one chat response concurrency assertion in the second shard. That case passes in isolation on this head. The same isolated chat case passes on the unchanged base. Both corresponding unchanged-base chat shards also pass (351 and 324 tests). The cause of the earlier wider-suite chat failure is not established. The preparation cleanup timeout and chat failure remain part of this record. - CI at `17ed67eaa7`: all other verification jobs passed. Browser shard 6 initially reported a request callback from the preceding test after teardown; its single unchanged-code retry passed. Server shard 10 timed out the 2,100-row retention confirmation fixture at 15 seconds on both attempts. That exact case passes locally, but the repeated CI failure required a repair. Its setup repeatedly rebuilt a shared-workspace privacy map. The logs and failures remain part of this record. - Reused the test-only repair from #18774 without changing its source file. At `ab774e9418`, all 54 retention tests and all 25 ordinary production privacy tests pass locally (79 total). Full CI [41650626903](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41650626903) passed on that commit, and its exact-head Greptile review was 5/5. The fixture preserves its 2,100 rows, query-bound assertions, privacy-source map, and completed-history test deadlines. - The additional review identified retained-source access/trust denials that still bypassed the workspace explanation. Real-resolver regressions reproduced both plain-403 failures before the correction. Both now yield a safe workspace validation explanation, while the dedicated low-trust denial and saved workspace remain unchanged. The optional duplicate ref-resolution block is also consolidated. - Final review corrections: 65 source, transport and error-projection tests passed, followed by all 48 lifecycle cases against an owned disposable PostgreSQL database (113 total). The initial combined command skipped the explicitly gated lifecycle suite; the subsequent dedicated invocation enabled and passed all 48. Full workspace typecheck and build pass. The first standalone lifecycle launcher lacked the repository TypeScript loader; rerunning with that loader resolved its import setup error. At previous head `7be02ea09c4ac76df560e8b517050cdf398f33f0`, full CI [41654422329, attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41654422329/attempts/2) passed, Greptile is 5/5 on that exact head, and all review threads are resolved. The first attempt timed out the unchanged voice-session report/history case at 15 seconds; 3,027 cases in its shard passed. That exact case passed locally, then its single unchanged-code shard retry passed. The wider-suite timeout cause remains unproven. The completed Paperclip advisory check is neutral; its earlier findings are corrected. No staging deployment or original-task recovery is claimed. - Master advanced while checks ran, producing conflicts in two adjacent test additions. Merged `27d35314be` into this branch as `d5c8d552939c86056abf8fe10833881b2ade41a4`, preserving both workspace-error tests and the audited Stop/receipt tests. Kept workspace maps to minimal corrections under the updated map rule. All 82 source, transport and interruption cases, all 48 real-database save/restore lifecycle cases, full typecheck, build, and map checks pass locally on the combined code. Current-head [CI 41660719214](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41660719214) and Greptile are pending; the earlier verified head has not been merged. ## Risks - Additional remote project repositories are now editable task copies. Shared source folders and upstream push permissions do not change. - Snapshot coverage uses existing workspace metadata. Older workspaces capture their previous inventory at reservation; successful save publication advances coverage and snapshot identity in one transaction. No SQL migration is needed. - A retained copy can contain files from a project that is no longer mentioned. Preparation rechecks that project's current access and trust policy before reuse. - Explicit read-only descriptors still fail. Source-less projects remain metadata-only. Local folders still require import. No migration or provider-pack update is needed. - Error display reads only workspace validation errors. The existing run-secret registry and username censor run before display truncation. A redaction failure omits the explanation. - The retained fixture repair pauses its row trigger only within the isolated seed transaction, rebuilds the exact source map, and restores the trigger before commit. A rollback regression and 25 ordinary privacy cases pass. Its paged-case test budget honors the existing bounded inner waits; production deadlines are unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed by this session. The test-only fixture changes are reused from #18774, whose model record identifies OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol. The optional live acceptance probe uses `gpt-6-astra` with `xhigh` effort through Codex CLI 0.165.0. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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 feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.
The chat scenario catalog describes how people might request these capabilities in conversation, including setup and permission branches. These are planned Product E2E journeys, not live coverage results.
IDs and references
Use the existing IDs in issues, PRs, Storybook annotations, tests, and verification evidence:
| Reference | Example | Defined by |
|---|---|---|
| Feature ID | onboarding |
The recipe filename without .md. |
| Capability ID | onboarding/company |
The feature ID plus a key from its Sub-features list, separated by /. |
| Entry-point reference | onboarding.md#web-wizard | The recipe filename plus its entry-point heading. The local entry-point ID is web-wizard. |
For example, report verifying onboarding/company through web-wizard.
Capabilities describe behavior; entry points identify the surface used to exercise
it. Entry-point IDs are separate from generated capability IDs. Both maps and
Storybook use the same full capability IDs. Each child page states its feature
ID; recipe bullets show the full capability ID beside the local key, and access
companions show it beneath the local heading. Local keys remain unchanged for
parsing and existing anchors.
Keep recipe filenames, sub-feature keys, and entry-point keys stable when changing display titles or navigation. Renaming a filename or key changes its references. The section headings below are navigation labels, not additional IDs.
Browse features
Use this index to open a recipe or copy its feature and full capability IDs.
Getting started and access
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
onboarding |
Onboarding and first work | onboarding/instance, onboarding/company, onboarding/adapter, onboarding/first-task, onboarding/resume |
access |
Login, invitations, and access | access/login, access/invitations, access/membership, access/resources, access/cli-auth |
companies |
Companies and portability | companies/selection, companies/identity, companies/decision-models, companies/prompt-injection-prevention, companies/fast-responses, companies/agent-observability, companies/archive, companies/portability |
Tasks and conversations
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
tasks |
Task creation and lifecycle | tasks/create, tasks/organize, tasks/properties, tasks/discussion, tasks/completion, tasks/privacy |
task-coordination |
Delegation, dependencies, and signoff | task-coordination/delegation, task-coordination/dependencies, task-coordination/signoff, task-coordination/tree-control |
inbox-search |
Inbox, decisions, and search | inbox-search/views, inbox-search/triage, inbox-search/decisions, inbox-search/search, inbox-search/toasts |
agent-chat |
Agent conversations and project handoff | agent-chat/discovery, agent-chat/history, agent-chat/handoff, agent-chat/conference-room |
questions-and-approvals |
Questions and approvals | questions-and-approvals/questions, questions-and-approvals/dismiss-and-reopen, questions-and-approvals/confirmations, questions-and-approvals/plan-review, questions-and-approvals/audience, questions-and-approvals/governance, questions-and-approvals/tool-review, questions-and-approvals/continuation |
steering |
Steering and queued messages | steering/queue, steering/edit-order-discard, steering/steer, steering/interrupt, steering/stop-and-pause, steering/drafts, steering/approval-queue |
documents-artifacts |
Documents, attachments, and work products | documents-artifacts/documents, documents-artifacts/annotations, documents-artifacts/attachments, documents-artifacts/work-products, documents-artifacts/library |
Agents and reusable capabilities
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
agents |
Hiring, configuration, and organization | agents/hire, agents/grok-bot, agents/instructions, agents/organization, agents/primary-agent, agents/lifecycle, agents/built-in, agents/api-keys, agents/managed-agent-setup |
runs-adapters |
Runs, harnesses, and model accounts | runs-adapters/availability, runs-adapters/validation, runs-adapters/runs, runs-adapters/session |
skills |
Skills and Skill Studio | skills/discovery, skills/authoring, skills/versions, skills/policy, skills/testing |
teams |
Team packages and installation | teams/discovery, teams/preview, teams/install, teams/configuration |
Projects and execution
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
projects |
Projects and repositories | projects/lifecycle, projects/task-context, projects/repositories, projects/defaults, projects/privacy |
goals |
Goals and work alignment | goals/hierarchy, goals/alignment, goals/navigation |
workspaces |
Workspaces, services, and files | workspaces/binding, workspaces/provisioning, workspaces/services, workspaces/files-git, workspaces/closure |
execution-environments |
Execution environments | execution-environments/configuration, execution-environments/capabilities, execution-environments/probe, execution-environments/assignment, execution-environments/images |
recovery |
Recovery | recovery/diagnosis, recovery/bounded-continuation, recovery/source-action, recovery/exhaustion, recovery/workspace, recovery/unknown-outcome, recovery/user-continuation, recovery/reconnect |
Apps, channels, and extensions
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
connection-setup |
Connection setup | connection-setup/catalog, connection-setup/identity-and-access, connection-setup/credentials, connection-setup/handoff, connection-setup/draft-recovery, connection-setup/task-request, connection-setup/channel-setup, connection-setup/failure |
assistant-connections |
Assistant connections (MCP) | assistant-connections/setup, assistant-connections/consent, assistant-connections/device-login, assistant-connections/client-use, assistant-connections/revocation |
app-permissions |
App access and action permissions | app-permissions/agent-access, app-permissions/action-policy, app-permissions/catalog-change, app-permissions/test-action, app-permissions/account-maintenance |
chat-channels |
External chat and email | chat-channels/providers, chat-channels/identity, chat-channels/conversation, chat-channels/attachments, chat-channels/lifecycle, chat-channels/outbound-email |
gateways-profiles |
Tool gateways and access profiles | gateways-profiles/gateway, gateways-profiles/profiles, gateways-profiles/client-connect, gateways-profiles/tokens, gateways-profiles/activity |
secrets |
Secrets and proposals | secrets/company-secrets, secrets/user-secrets, secrets/proposals, secrets/vault-import, secrets/runtime-delivery |
plugins |
Plugins | plugins/installation, plugins/configuration, plugins/contributions, plugins/lifecycle |
Automation and structured work
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
routines |
Routines, schedules, and triggers | routines/definition, routines/triggers, routines/run-now, routines/history, routines/management |
cases |
Cases | cases/browse, cases/structure, cases/history, cases/task-links, cases/handoffs |
status-cards |
Status cards | status-cards/authoring, status-cards/generation, status-cards/inspection, status-cards/archive |
Oversight and operation
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
budgets-costs |
Costs and budgets | budgets-costs/cost-reporting, budgets-costs/budgets, budgets-costs/incidents, budgets-costs/resolution, budgets-costs/subscriptions, budgets-costs/accounting-recovery |
activity |
Dashboards and audit trails | activity/overview, activity/activity, activity/runs, activity/routine-audit, activity/timeline, activity/agent-commentary |
navigation-preferences |
Navigation, profile, and announcements | navigation-preferences/navigation, navigation-preferences/preferences, navigation-preferences/profile, navigation-preferences/announcements, navigation-preferences/fallbacks, navigation-preferences/command-palette |
instance-operations |
Instance operations | instance-operations/install-update, instance-operations/server-service, instance-operations/configuration, instance-operations/diagnostics, instance-operations/backup, instance-operations/runtime-setup |
cli-operations |
CLI/API and local worktrees | cli-operations/context, cli-operations/domain-commands, cli-operations/outputs, cli-operations/run-controls, cli-operations/worktree-instances, cli-operations/feedback-export |
Contributor surfaces
| Feature ID | Recipe | Capability IDs |
|---|---|---|
developer-labs |
Developer previews and diagnostic labs | developer-labs/design, developer-labs/interaction-labs, developer-labs/performance, developer-labs/route-gates |
Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.
Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in
maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the
Storybook guide. Recipes are discovered automatically from their navigation
metadata; generation does not depend on this high-level index.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing
prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature ID, full capability IDs and
entry-point ID (for example, onboarding/company through web-wizard), plus the
recipe link, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result,
command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the
action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant,
without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page
modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module
is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested.
Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations
describe documentation scope, not runtime health.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health. Product E2E reports reuse these capability IDs through the journey associations. Their coverage view shows which scenarios in a campaign are linked to each capability and the associated test results. An association or passing scenario does not certify the whole capability; unselected and unmapped journeys remain distinct.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with
the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior
and that local references still exist. Keep the same-named agent access companion
and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only
access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run
node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks;
follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.
Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:
---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---
The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. Discovery uses the recipe and companion; keep the readable ID index above aligned when features or capability IDs change.
Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas
section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and
has Scope (ui, cli, or browser),
Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions
and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API.
The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.
After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked local keys, full capability IDs, and observable behavior/states,
such as
- `company`: `onboarding/company` — create a company. - How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
New or updated entries follow
Poteto's feature-map examples.
Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when
their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by
Omnigent's feature map.
Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.