Files
PaperClipAI/maps/feature-map/tasks.md
T
DottaandPaperclip 3bbc2104b6 docs: map missing product and operator capabilities (#16990)
## 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>
2026-10-20 12:47:41 -05:00

9.6 KiB
Raw Blame History

navigation
navigation
section sectionOrder order
Tasks and conversations 20 10

Task creation and lifecycle

People create, assign, organize, discuss, and finish tasks. A task retains its owner, project, priority, history, and outputs as it moves through the work lifecycle.

Feature ID: tasks.

Implementation: new task, task list, task detail.

Agent access: companion.

Sub-features

  • create: tasks/create — capture a title/request with the intended agent, project, and attachments.
  • organize: tasks/organize — filter, sort, group, and navigate tasks without losing the selected context.
  • properties: tasks/properties — change status, priority, assignee, project, and relationships where authorized.
  • discussion: tasks/discussion — persist comments, references, and files on the task.
  • completion: tasks/completion — distinguish backlog, active work, review, blocked, done, and cancelled outcomes.
  • privacy: tasks/privacy — create private tasks, share or revoke access, and inspect parent/project inheritance before changing visibility.

How to get to it (user POV)

new-task

Use New task from the global launcher, task list, or project task view.

task-list

Open /issues or a project’s Issues view; legacy /tasks links redirect.

task-detail

Open /issues/:issueId from a row, mention, or direct link.

task-sharing

Use the privacy control in New task, or open an existing task’s menu and choose Make private, Share…, or Make public where allowed. The share sheet lists direct grants and inherited access from private ancestors or project membership. Inherited rows have no local revoke action; manage that access at its source.

Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI

Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use a disposable project. Persistence checks can assign work to Me or leave it unassigned; execution checks additionally need an invokable test agent. Record whether a real or simulated harness handles execution.

new-task

Automated: creation dialog is component coverage with mocked requests.

Manual: Create a uniquely named task with an agent and project. Open its resulting link and reload. Confirm text, attachment, assignment, and project persisted, and verify execution started only when the task and agent are eligible.

Creation is request-first: enter Describe a task…, choose the assignee and project, and submit Create task. A standalone title field is not always shown. Use a human/unassigned task to verify persistence without invoking a model.

task-list

Automated: task-list helpers cover search URLs, pagination, deduplication, and presentation constants. The suite does not render the page or exercise filtering, grouping, opening a task, and returning; those interactions still need a running-browser check.

Manual: Seed human-created, agent-created, scheduled routine, human-initiated chat-channel, and creator-less tasks. Confirm automation is hidden by default, show agent-created tasks reveals it, reload preserves the choice, and Clear filters hides it again. Verify list and board search with automation newer than the human results, and expand contextual ancestors/subtasks without promoting unrelated automated roots. Repeat in project task lists. Agent profiles and task-detail subtasks retain complete history.

Manual: Filter by status and assignee, change grouping/sort, open a task, and return. Verify the correct records and selected view survive navigation and reload. Include an empty result and a failed request.

task-detail

Automated: task detail covers component behavior, while issue service covers server contracts.

Automated: paused assignee relevance uses a real disposable server and paused process agent, with no inference, to check both task interfaces. Done and cancelled tasks hide the paused-agent warning; reopening restores it. The agent stays paused and no run starts.

Manual: For a disposable task owned by a legacy agent, have its current run assign the task to a human with status In review. Verify that assignment and status persist, that the current run finishes without issue_reassigned, and that slow workspace restoration does not turn the task Blocked. Try a later edit from the outgoing run and verify rejection. Repeat a board reassignment and confirm that the outgoing run still stops.

Manual: Add a comment and edit authorized properties. Reload and verify history, actor, and values. Complete a disposable task and inspect its deliverable; reopen through an available action and confirm the next execution follows current policy.

Manual: Ask a standard native agent to schedule a future check on its current task. Reload and confirm the persisted monitor. After the agent yields, verify one later wake and a consumed schedule. For malformed-call recovery, use the agent access recipe and verify that schema feedback supports a corrected call before a wait is claimed. For a due monitor held by execution recovery, confirm that the schedule remains and task activity explains the deferral. Repeated checks must not replay the held work. Resolve the hold through its existing recovery action, then verify one wake. Hold native finalization after the provider has stopped, and verify that both scheduled and manual checks retain the due monitor. After settlement, verify one wake. If its timeout passes during workspace recovery, verify settlement followed by the configured expiry recovery, with no ordinary monitor wake or duplicate escalation. For a timer already dispatched before recovery, verify that the saved result settles without changing the task, removing a successor's checkout, or creating another wake. The monitor regression and scheduler regression cover these boundaries with PostgreSQL.

Manual: Add an ordinary Board comment while a task retry is queued or running. Confirm that the same execution keeps working and receives the saved message, without a second executor or an implicit move to Todo. Repeat with a parked retry and verify that fresh instructions can supersede it. Explicit Stop must still cancel active work. The comment route regressions and HTTP/process and interrupted-cancellation tests cover these boundaries locally; deployed runner acceptance remains separate.

task-sharing

Automated: Share sheet, privacy controls, grant routes, and privacy production review cover component actions, persisted grants, inheritance, and actor/resource denials. They do not establish a live two-person browser journey.

Manual: Use authenticated mode with two ordinary operators, an eligible agent, and disposable parent/child/sibling tasks. Create private work as the first person; confirm the second person cannot discover or cold-open it. Share only the child, reload both sessions, and verify child/descendant access without exposing the private parent, sibling, or unreadable project metadata. Inspect direct and inherited rows in Share; inherited rows must identify access managed at its source and offer no local revoke action. Confirm a shared reader cannot manage the task’s grants. Revoke the direct grant as its manager, reload, and retry list and direct reads; change inherited access at its ancestor or project source separately. Inspect blocked Make public actions under a private parent or nonpersonal private project; separately confirm the offered personal-project publish action removes that project binding while private descendants remain private. With an actual granted agent, test the responsible user’s access intersection and the allowed restriction to private; agent access must not permit sharing or publishing.

Sources: Privacy actions, share sheet, issue routes, and authorization.

Gotchas

  • Private task sharing and private project membership are distinct read sources. Revoking a direct task grant does not revoke an independent ancestor/project grant; inspect the actual access source.

  • Priority remains an API field, but ordinary priority UI editing is hidden.

  • A status label alone does not prove that the requested work exists.

  • Single-assignee and atomic checkout rules still apply when tasks are created from different hosts.

  • Use coordination, steering, and documents for their distinct workflows.

Documentation scope: Tasks, conversations, and attention

Recipes cover the main task/conversation/attention workflows. Full shell, permission, attachment, long-thread, and concurrency permutations remain to be enumerated.