mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-14 08:26:46 +02:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## 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>
90 lines
4.7 KiB
JavaScript
90 lines
4.7 KiB
JavaScript
import assert from "node:assert/strict";
|
|
import { mkdtempSync, mkdirSync, readFileSync, rmSync, writeFileSync } from "node:fs";
|
|
import os from "node:os";
|
|
import path from "node:path";
|
|
import test from "node:test";
|
|
import { checkMaps } from "./check-maps.mjs";
|
|
|
|
const record = `API: \`present\` — POST /api/example.
|
|
Agent access: \`partial\` — agent REST; native binding missing.
|
|
Policy: same company and calling owner.
|
|
Evidence: \`source-only\` — implementation inspected.
|
|
Verification: \`not-run\` — assert permitted owner and denied other company.
|
|
Gaps: native mutation path.
|
|
`;
|
|
|
|
function fixture(t) {
|
|
const root = mkdtempSync(path.join(os.tmpdir(), "paperclip-map-contract-"));
|
|
t.after(() => rmSync(root, { recursive: true, force: true }));
|
|
for (const dir of ["maps/feature-map", "maps/agent-access-map"]) mkdirSync(path.join(root, dir), { recursive: true });
|
|
const product = path.join(root, "maps/feature-map/example.md");
|
|
const agent = path.join(root, "maps/agent-access-map/example.md");
|
|
writeFileSync(path.join(root, "maps/README.md"), "# Contract\n");
|
|
for (const dir of ["feature-map", "agent-access-map"]) writeFileSync(path.join(root, "maps", dir, "README.md"), "[Example](example.md)\n");
|
|
writeFileSync(product, "# Example\n\n[Agent access](../agent-access-map/example.md)\n\n## Sub-features\n\n- `create`: create a record.\n\n## How to get to it (user POV)\n");
|
|
writeFileSync(agent, `# Agent access\n\nProduct map: [Example](../feature-map/example.md).\n\nReview date: 2026-10-12. Source commit: \`${"a".repeat(40)}\`.\n\n## \`create\`\n\nReview: \`baseline\`.\n\n${record}`);
|
|
return { root, product, agent };
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
test("paired source-only records pass without being promoted to live proof", (t) => {
|
|
const { root } = fixture(t);
|
|
assert.deepEqual(checkMaps(root), { errors: [], areas: 1, capabilities: 1 });
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test("a product area cannot lose its companion", (t) => {
|
|
const { root, agent } = fixture(t);
|
|
rmSync(agent);
|
|
assert.ok(checkMaps(root).errors.some((error) => error.includes("missing file")));
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test("renaming a capability on one side reports missing and orphan IDs", (t) => {
|
|
const { root, agent } = fixture(t);
|
|
writeFileSync(agent, readFileSync(agent, "utf8").replace("## `create`", "## `update`"));
|
|
const result = checkMaps(root);
|
|
assert.ok(result.errors.some((error) => error.includes("missing capability: create")));
|
|
assert.ok(result.errors.some((error) => error.includes("orphan capability: update")));
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test("duplicate IDs cannot disguise the missing capability", (t) => {
|
|
const { root, agent } = fixture(t);
|
|
writeFileSync(agent, readFileSync(agent, "utf8") + `\n## \`create\`\n\nReview: \`baseline\`.\n\n${record}`);
|
|
assert.ok(checkMaps(root).errors.some((error) => error.includes("duplicate capability: create")));
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test("a moved or deleted source reference is reported", (t) => {
|
|
const { root, agent } = fixture(t);
|
|
writeFileSync(agent, readFileSync(agent, "utf8") + "\n[Source](../../server/deleted.ts#L12)\n");
|
|
assert.ok(checkMaps(root).errors.some((error) => error.includes("broken local reference")));
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test("every reviewed operation needs its own access fields", (t) => {
|
|
const { root, agent } = fixture(t);
|
|
const text = readFileSync(agent, "utf8").replace("Review: `baseline`.", "Review: `operation-reviewed`.\n\n### `create`");
|
|
writeFileSync(agent, text + `\n### \`update\`\n\n${record.replace(/^API:.*\n/m, "")}`);
|
|
assert.ok(checkMaps(root).errors.some((error) => error.includes("missing API field")));
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test("verified evidence cannot coexist with verification not run", (t) => {
|
|
const { root, agent } = fixture(t);
|
|
writeFileSync(agent, readFileSync(agent, "utf8").replace("Evidence: `source-only`", "Evidence: `verified`"));
|
|
assert.ok(checkMaps(root).errors.some((error) => error.includes("verified evidence requires a passed verification record")));
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test("an exception needs its reason rather than an empty exemption label", (t) => {
|
|
const { root, agent } = fixture(t);
|
|
writeFileSync(agent, readFileSync(agent, "utf8").replace(/^API:.*$/m, "API: `not-applicable`."));
|
|
assert.ok(checkMaps(root).errors.some((error) => error.includes("not-applicable needs a reason")));
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test("API presence needs a concrete method and path", (t) => {
|
|
const { root, agent } = fixture(t);
|
|
writeFileSync(agent, readFileSync(agent, "utf8").replace("POST /api/example", "see the backend"));
|
|
assert.ok(checkMaps(root).errors.some((error) => error.includes("present API needs an exact method/path")));
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test("an empty policy cannot borrow the next field's content", (t) => {
|
|
const { root, agent } = fixture(t);
|
|
writeFileSync(agent, readFileSync(agent, "utf8").replace(/^Policy:.*$/m, "Policy:\n"));
|
|
assert.ok(checkMaps(root).errors.some((error) => error.includes("missing Policy field")));
|
|
});
|