Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip bd382eee53 fix(recovery): explain retained source verification failures (#17773)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Workspace recovery must prove the identity of retained work before
it uses an allocation.
> - The verifier rejects several different contracts with the same
`source_binding_invalid` code.
> - A saved Retry can therefore stop before file preservation without
enough evidence for a safe repair.
> - Operators need a bounded observation of the selected source without
another attempt or weaker guards.
> - This pull request records closed failure reasons and adds an
explicit read-only inspection on the run page.
> - The benefit is a precise next diagnostic step while the saved work,
intent, and ownership fences remain intact.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #17741, #17053. This is a diagnostic follow-up. It does not change
recovery admission or the retained-source acceptance policy.

**What happened?**

A retained-source recovery exhausted in `verify_execution` with only
`source_binding_invalid`. Run and task diagnostics could not distinguish
an invalid reference, lease policy, source binding, or reopened
allocation. The normal recovery-actions read can also revalidate
recovery state, so it was not a safe substitute for a current read-only
inspection.

**Expected behavior**

Record an allowlisted reason at the rejected guard. Allow a reader to
inspect one exact task/run/action without changing its attempts, saved
input, receipts, or ownership. Clearly separate the recorded failure
from current identity observations.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Prepare a terminal native run with a retained-source action and a
lease policy of `reuse_by_environment`.
2. Attempt source verification. The guard must still reject that policy.
3. Open the failed run and choose Inspect recovery, then Inspect current
source. The diagnostic should name `lease_policy_not_retained` and the
allowlisted policy.

## What Changed

- Split existing source-binding guards into closed reason codes. Keep
each acceptance predicate and physical recovery action unchanged.
- Persist validated, path-free reason/policy detail with future system
recovery failures. Keep historical generic records compatible.
- Add an explicit query on the existing task recovery-actions GET. Exact
company/task/run/action selection bypasses read revalidation. Run
selection lists at most 20 actions; inspection stops before per-lease
lookup when a record has more than eight sources.
- Add a manual inspection control on native export-failure run pages.
Keep resolved retained actions inspectable. Show recorded failure and
current recorded-source identity separately.
- Update execution semantics and feature/access recipes. The shared type
is the normalized server/UI contract; it contains no provider payload or
secret.

## Verification

- RED: the prior verifier failed both reason assertions for rejected
warm policy and foreign-run lease binding. GREEN: the final focused
source/HTTP, system-state, and UI suites pass 23 tests. The UI follow-up
passes 8 tests after the review fixes.
- HTTP tests prove exact selection, cross-company denial,
resolved-action access, reused-allocation rejection, redaction, and
unchanged actions, runs, leases, tasks, wakeup receipts, workspace
operations, and activity. A nine-source case proves bounded inspection
while the existing worker verifier still accepts all nine valid sources.
- Review follow-up: show allowlisted saved detail beside a changed
current observation, preserve all listed actions, and follow
exact-action selection in verified/limited/error tests. The prior
component fails the saved/current drift regression in an in-memory RED
control; the current component passes. UI typecheck/build pass again.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. Token gates, maps, module
boundaries, and `git diff --check` pass.
- Rebased onto master `46de15ff4b` without conflicts. Range-diff proves
both diagnostic commits are unchanged. On new head
`a7e2bc87fcea75e76b6b736304d1287257f71174`, all 23 focused tests, full
typecheck/build, token gates, maps, and module checks pass again. Both
fresh reviews are 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. Final exact-head
GitHub status is CLEAN: 55 success, 2 skipped, 1 neutral, no pending
checks or failures. The [ci / verify
aggregate](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40387002325/job/121802415824)
passed in eight seconds. All test/build/typecheck/E2E lanes passed.
- Existing full workspace recovery suite: 56/56 pass (103.5 seconds)
before the byte-equivalent rebase. `pnpm test:run` hit repeated embedded
PostgreSQL initialization failure before database-suite assertions and
was stopped. No full local suite pass is claimed. The owned external
`_test` database provided the focused HTTP/source verification. The
prior browser attempt also stalled at Network.enable before its click;
that attempt did not establish browser acceptance.
- Current-head local browser acceptance passes through the actual run
page: Inspect recovery lists the exact action, Inspect current source
shows recorded generic failure separately from the current rejected
policy, and reload resets inspection to the explicit control. Explicit
selection works again after reload. The app used isolated data, an empty
inherited environment, a paused synthetic agent, and no provider
credentials. Final state remains failed/exhausted with zero attempts,
zero wakeup receipts, zero workspace operations, and unchanged original
generic failure. The local app and temporary tab were stopped. This
proves the diagnostic journey, not the deployed source's actual lease
policy or its recovery.
- Final merge verification at
`a7e2bc87fcea75e76b6b736304d1287257f71174`: GitHub reports CLEAN and
mergeable. Both repository-required checks, `ci / verify` and `ci /
e2e`, pass, as does the exact-head Greptile check (5/5, zero unresolved
threads). The separate [Entire
trail](https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/paperclip/trails/7) has no
recorded reviewer approval; no such approval is claimed. It is not a
configured GitHub merge gate.
- Initial local setup failures were distinct from product assertions:
localhost sandbox EPERM required scoped local access; a browser harness
import path was corrected. A test UUID type inference error and
historical native-export UI selection gap were corrected before the
green run. The live task remains blocked; this diagnostic does not claim
it recovered.

## Risks

- This change improves evidence. It does not prove provider termination,
local descriptor integrity, or successful file preservation, and it does
not repair the original source.
- Current inspection spans multiple database reads. It is an
observation, not a historical cause or execution authority. It performs
no provider/filesystem calls and starts no retry or executor.
- The optional persisted detail is backward compatible. Unknown values
and extra fields are excluded. Oversized source lists remain uninspected
through this explicit diagnostic path; physical recovery rules do not
change.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6, with code execution and browser tools. The
exact serving model ID and context window were 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>
2026-10-27 08:21:28 -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.