DottaandPaperclip
3bbc2104b6
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map records product entry points and verification recipes. > - The paired agent access map records APIs and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. > - The new index in #16987 made several missing capabilities easier to find. > - Those gaps hid existing assistant, privacy, cost, and operator workflows. > - This pull request adds 15 capabilities with source references, test scope, and manual checks. > - Readers can find these workflows without treating documentation or structural checks as live proof. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16987. Related map work: #16025 and #16214. A search of related pull requests found no duplicate of these additions. **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/` and `maps/agent-access-map/`. **What's wrong?** The maps omit public assistant MCP connections, private task and project sharing, subscription fees, cost-recording recovery, agent API keys, keyboard entry points, and several operator CLI workflows. **Suggested fix** Add product recipes and matching access records. Show the full capability IDs in the README index and each page. Keep the existing ID format and all 175 existing IDs. Exclude AI account pools. ## What Changed - Add the `assistant-connections` family with setup, consent, device login, client use, and revocation. - Add `tasks/privacy`, `projects/privacy`, `budgets-costs/subscriptions`, and `budgets-costs/accounting-recovery`. - Add `agents/api-keys`, `agents/managed-agent-setup`, and `navigation-preferences/command-palette`. - Add `cli-operations/feedback-export`, `chat-channels/outbound-email`, and `instance-operations/runtime-setup`. - Pair all 15 additions with access rules, source evidence, manual checks, and explicit coverage gaps. Update the visible index to 35 families and 190 capability IDs. - Add cross-links from existing access, connection setup, search, and CLI recipes. Do not change the schema or add AI account pools. - Clarify that the task Share sheet displays direct and inherited access. Manage inherited access at its ancestor or project source. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes: 35 areas and 190 paired capability IDs, with valid references and contract fields. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes: 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - A comparison with the base confirms all 175 existing IDs remain and exactly the intended 15 IDs were added. The README index matches the discovered feature metadata. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` cannot run because this checkout lacks `storybook/internal/csf-tools` and installed workspace dependencies. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build` were attempted. All stopped before their task ran: the pnpm 9.15.4 bootstrap could not fetch and verify its registry packages in this environment. - Source review covers the documented UI, CLI, routes, services, and existing tests. No live browser, provider, or authorization journey was run. New access records remain `baseline`, `source-only`, and `not-run`. - Greptile and the Paperclip reviewer both rate current commit `bb8eb797b0a1dc26256faf2f0e57cbe7abc9adcf` 5/5. The inherited-access review thread is resolved. - [GitHub CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39466772379) passes for that commit, including typecheck, build, unit tests, Runner checks, and browser tests. Browser shard 7 passed after one retry for a runner shutdown. All PR checks are successful, neutral, or skipped. ## Risks - Low runtime risk: this change only edits maps. No application behavior, API, dependency, or schema changes. - Source-reviewed recipes can drift or miss deployment-specific behavior. The records state their limits and require live checks before a capability is marked verified. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model ID `gpt-6.1-sol`, 475,000-token context window, xhigh reasoning effort, with tool use and code execution. ## 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.
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 requires operator rollout admission, 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.
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.