mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-15 20:53:23 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
7d9b93aee2
## 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>
65 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
65 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
# Login, invitations, and access
|
||
|
||
People and agents enter the correct instance and company with the permissions granted to their identity. Login, membership, resource access, and CLI authorization have separate controls.
|
||
|
||
Implementation: [auth page](../../ui/src/pages/Auth.tsx), [company members](../../ui/src/pages/CompanyAccess.tsx), [invitation](../../ui/src/pages/InviteLanding.tsx).
|
||
|
||
Agent access: [companion](../agent-access-map/access.md).
|
||
|
||
## Sub-features
|
||
|
||
- `login`: sign in or claim the board in the configured deployment mode.
|
||
- `invitations`: join through a valid invite and handle expired or already-used links.
|
||
- `membership`: review join requests and manage company/instance membership and permissions.
|
||
- `resources`: respect company and resource boundaries on deep links and mutations.
|
||
- `cli-auth`: authorize a CLI session and revoke or replace credentials.
|
||
|
||
## How to get to it (user POV)
|
||
|
||
### `login`
|
||
|
||
Open `/auth`; first-owner bootstrap uses `/board-claim/:token` when configured.
|
||
|
||
### `invite-members`
|
||
|
||
Open `/invite/:token`; operators manage members in company settings and join requests at `/inbox/requests`.
|
||
Create/revoke human links at Members → Invites
|
||
(`/company/settings/members?tab=invites`). Human invitees receive the chosen
|
||
role after sign-in; agent invitations still use join-request approval.
|
||
|
||
### `cli-authorization`
|
||
|
||
Start the CLI auth/connect flow and approve its `/cli-auth/:id` browser page; instance access is under Settings when visible.
|
||
|
||
## Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
|
||
|
||
Preconditions: follow the [baseline](./README.md#before-driving-a-journey). For login tests use authenticated mode and two test users; local-trusted mode does not prove session enforcement. Use two companies for isolation checks.
|
||
|
||
### `login`
|
||
|
||
Automated: [auth UI](../../ui/src/pages/Auth.test.tsx) and [session routes](../../server/src/__tests__/auth-session-route.test.ts) cover their respective layers.
|
||
|
||
Manual: Sign in, reload a company deep link, sign out, and revisit it. Confirm the browser requests authentication rather than showing cached company data. Test an invalid claim separately on disposable state.
|
||
|
||
### `invite-members`
|
||
|
||
Automated: [member UI](../../ui/src/pages/CompanyAccess.test.tsx) and [invite replay](../../server/src/__tests__/invite-accept-replay.test.ts) provide component and route evidence.
|
||
|
||
Manual: Accept an invite as the intended user, inspect the resulting company and permissions, then reuse and expire disposable invites. Change a member permission, reload as that member, and verify a denied operation on another company remains denied.
|
||
|
||
### `cli-authorization`
|
||
|
||
Automated: [board auth client](../../cli/src/__tests__/board-auth.test.ts) and [token commands](../../cli/src/__tests__/token.test.ts) cover the client contracts.
|
||
|
||
Manual: Authorize the intended CLI context, make a read-only company request, then revoke its token and retry. Verify failure is explicit and does not silently fall back to another identity.
|
||
|
||
Use `auth login`, `auth whoami`, and `auth revoke-current` with explicit context.
|
||
Retry with the same bearer to prove revocation; deleting local credentials with
|
||
logout alone does not establish that server revocation succeeded.
|
||
|
||
## Gotchas
|
||
|
||
- Settings visibility is not authorization; direct requests still need permission checks.
|
||
- An agent bearer key must not gain another company’s access.
|
||
- Never put invite tokens, session cookies, or API keys in verification evidence.
|