Files
PaperClipAI/maps/storybook-map
7b9334cd10 Draft: Build agent-ready design proposal system (#16875)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work.
> - People need consistent UI patterns to review and control that work.
> - The current board uses related layouts and controls with different
spacing, type, and behavior.
> - That drift makes it hard for a designer or an agent to build a new
page from a reliable reference.
> - Storybook can show the shared patterns and the states they need to
support.
> - This pull request adds design proposals, a local sandbox, and
reusable UI controls so people can compare the patterns in context.
> - The benefit is a clearer design system that agents can use to build
consistent UI.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Subsystem affected**

`ui/` — React board UI and Storybook.

**Problem or motivation**

Board pages repeat visual and interaction decisions. Storybook did not
provide a complete reference for task views, conversation states,
typography, toolbars, tabs, and light/dark colors. People could not
compare a proposed pattern with the running board in one place.

**Proposed solution**

Add a staged Design Proposals catalog with foundations, components,
layouts, and page specimens. Add an opt-in sandbox. Reuse production
components where possible. Include synthetic conversation states and
shared controls so reviewers can compare and refine them.

**Alternatives considered**

Separate static mockups would not show keyboard behavior, responsive
layout, or real component states. Rebuilding each page only in Storybook
would allow the reference to drift from the board.

**Roadmap alignment**

This improves existing board UI and Skills Manager surfaces. It does not
add a new control-plane capability.

## What Changed

- Added dark and light color references, typography and conversation
specimens, and component stories for buttons, tabs, toolbars, sidebar,
popovers, activity, and task lists.
- Added a local design sandbox with synthetic task conversation playback
and representative states.
- Shared collection toolbars and navigation patterns across task, agent,
project, routine, skill, connector, and artifact pages.
- Added the streamlined Skills tabs and a My Skills collection that uses
the shared skill cards.
- Restored saved-thread access during synthetic playback, kept connector
searchbox semantics, and updated reproduction checks after moving trial
stories.
- Documented the proposed patterns and added focused UI, catalog, and
browser checks.

## Verification

- `pnpm check:token-gates`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `node
scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check` passed.
- Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after
merging master. After the review fixes, focused UI typecheck, `pnpm
build-storybook`, 23 Skills Sources tests, and all 15 Storybook
typography browser tests passed.
- Focused task-thread and system-notice suites passed: 251 tests.
Connector Browse passed 84 tests; the connector, attachment, recovery,
and Storybook flyout browser journeys passed locally.
- A local full Vitest run hit one intermittent chat-channels integration
failure; that test passed in isolation. GitHub CI
[39347996059](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39347996059)
passed on the exact latest commit: 55 successful checks and two skipped
draft-only Storybook jobs.
- Greptile reviewed the exact latest commit at 5/5 with no new comments
or open review threads. GitHub reports the branch as cleanly mergeable.

## Risks

- This PR changes 206 files and exceeds the repository's 100-file review
target. Review by commit and consider a scoped split before merge.
- Design Proposals are staged references. Fixture interactions do not
prove API behavior, permissions, or provider execution.
- UI changes to shared controls may affect pages outside the proposal
sandbox. Focused browser checks and the full CI matrix passed.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact runtime model ID and context
window are not exposed in this session. The model used reasoning, code
execution, browser inspection, and local tests. Earlier branch commits
were also AI-assisted in this Codex conversation.

## 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 available in this session)
- [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 where applicable
- [x] I have either linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR
following the relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal or 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 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: Scott Tong <scott@scotts-mbp-m5-max.local>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-19 17:45:26 -07:00
..

Storybook map

Browse the published feature guide, or run pnpm storybook for the current checkout. The feature and capability IDs come from the feature recipes. Product behavior and permissions remain governed by the implementation spec and access companions.

Authored sources

Each story owns its small parameters.paperclip annotation. There is no authored central catalog, review ledger, date stamp, source list or fingerprint to update. Storybook's CSF parser supplies filenames, titles, explicit meta IDs, exports, play-function counts and story IDs without executing story modules.

const meta = {
  id: "tasks-create",
  title: "Tasks and conversations/Task creation and lifecycle/Create",
  parameters: {
    paperclip: {
      capabilities: ["tasks/create"],
      implementation: "production",
      boundary: "fixtures",
      notes: "Uses the shipped composer; submission is simulated.",
    },
  },
};

capabilities is an array of stable area/capability IDs. Its first entry is the primary home; others cross-list the same suite. An empty array requires an exception explaining the intentional scope. Shared foundations may use home: "foundations" with an exception to keep their existing location and links. Staged design work may use home: "design-proposals", with status: "proposed" and an exception explaining why it is staged separately from production references. The metadata must be literal; place it after any other parameter spreads.

Field Values and purpose
status current, proposed, historical, mixed, unreviewed (default). Authored product alignment intent, not a live review certificate.
implementation production, prototype, mixed, guide, unreviewed (default). What actually renders.
boundary fixtures, fixture-server, static, unreviewed (default). What is simulated or requires an owned fixture.
notes Optional durable scenario limits and rationale. Do not append a history of unrelated changes.
replacement Optional repository-relative path of an existing replacement story.

A production component can use fixtures. A prototype that imports production primitives remains a prototype of its outer subject. Use unreviewed when intent or parity is unclear. Preserve useful historical examples and their explanations. Historical examples, proposals and guides do not remove missing-example gaps. No annotation or story count proves permissions, persistence, provider behavior, full recipe coverage or passing tests.

Navigation and outputs

Stories live in ui/storybook/stories/<primary-feature-area>/. Sidebar titles use the recipe's section and H1 title, followed by the suite name. / in feature labels becomes , in the sidebar. Preserve explicit CSF IDs across title/folder changes. Compare the built index.json when changing navigation.

Design proposals is a separate top-level review section. Its stories live in ui/storybook/stories/design-proposals/, with titles beginning Design proposals/. Group these titles by Foundations (tokens), Components (reusable UI), Layouts (page structures), Pages (complete screens), Patterns (shared behavior) and Guidelines (usage and contribution rules), in that order. Create a group when there are stories for it; do not add empty placeholders. For example, color tokens belong in Design proposals/Foundations/Colors (dark mode), the task table in Design proposals/Components/Task list, and its complete page in Design proposals/Pages/Tasks. Preserve explicit story IDs and exports when reorganizing so links and browser tests remain valid. Retain capability references so proposals remain discoverable from the feature guide, but never count them as current production examples. Keep using shared components and tokens rather than creating a parallel design implementation. When a proposal is reviewed and adopted in the app, move its story into the usual feature or Foundations home, update its classification and staging metadata, and preserve the explicit CSF ID and exports so review links remain valid.

The generator discovers feature recipes and story annotations. It assembles:

  • ui/storybook/generated/catalog.json and feature-index.json.
  • A generated Overview story per feature, retaining feature-map-<area>--overview.
  • ui/storybook/.storybook/preview.tsx, with the literal sidebar order required by Storybook and the authored decorators/fixtures from preview-base.tsx.
  • Markdown feature, access, Storybook and verification indexes, plus the current page inventory, under maps/generated/.

All these outputs are ignored. Storybook start/build and UI typechecking generate from a fresh checkout. The published Storybook includes the guide and each feature's verification scope. After edits during a dev session, rerun the generator (restart Storybook after navigation changes). Obsolete generated Overview files are removed. Never edit generated outputs or commit them to resolve a merge conflict.

Checks and review

node scripts/check-maps.mjs
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check
node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs

--write is a compatibility alias for the default generation command. --check validates authored inputs without requiring existing outputs or writing files. Checks reject malformed annotations, unknown capabilities, duplicate IDs, broken map references, missing companions and invalid navigation. CI runs the map tests through the UI Vitest suite and validates/generates inputs during UI typechecking.

Use Git diffs to select changed stories, rendered subjects, fixtures, and recipes for review. A changed source is a review candidate, not an instruction to refresh metadata on every dependent example. Inspect actual imports and contracts; shared fixture changes can require broad review without broad acknowledgement edits. Keep revision-specific findings and executed evidence in the PR, issue or CI artifact. Move only durable limitations into the affected source annotation or recipe. Past review history remains available through Git.

maintain-storybook owns stories and their annotations; review-storybook exercises them. Product/access maintenance owns the recipes, including optional capability verification scope. Use the existing Storybook browser workflow. Report source inspection, rendering, play assertions, visual comparison and production acceptance separately. Do not publish new baselines to pass a map cleanup.