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>
3.0 KiB
Inbox, decisions, and search
People find work that needs their attention, distinguish unread activity from required decisions, archive handled items, and search across the company.
Implementation: inbox, decisions, search.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
views: use Mine, Recent, Unread, Blocked, and broader task views.triage: read or archive attention items without pretending the underlying task is complete.decisions: open the source of a decision and act in the right context.search: query company work and follow a result to its original record.
How to get to it (user POV)
inbox
Use Inbox links or the corresponding task views when the combined list is enabled.
decisions
Open /decisions, then a queue at /decisions/queues/:key and its source item.
search
Open /search or the navigation search entry.
Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Seed assigned, unread, blocked, and resolved tasks plus a pending decision. Record the combined Inbox/Tasks experimental setting.
inbox
Automated: archive routes cover server mutations. Task-list helpers cover search URLs, pagination, and presentation constants; they do not render the combined Inbox/Tasks page. Reading, archiving, and navigating that page remain manual checks.
Manual: Read an unread task, return to Unread, archive a handled item, and reload. Verify personal triage state changes while task status stays correct. Switch users and companies to check isolation.
decisions
Automated: decision queues covers route behavior. End-to-end queue-to-source navigation is manual.
Manual: Open a pending decision, follow its source, resolve it through the supported control, and reload the queue. Confirm it retires only after the decision persisted and unrelated pending items remain.
search
Automated: search page and company search service cover UI and server search separately.
Manual: Search a unique task title and content phrase, open the result, and compare the actual record. Test filters, no results, and a second company. Verify stale results do not expose inaccessible data.
Gotchas
-
Combined Inbox/Tasks requires both
enableCombinedInboxTasksandenableStreamlinedUi. Standalone Inbox tests render archive/read controls and toolbars; this is not live multi-user evidence. -
Personal archival is not task cancellation or completion.
-
Legacy Inbox routes can redirect to the combined task view; record which host actually rendered.
-
Search service tests do not establish the relevance quality of every query.