mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-16 05:17:41 +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>
53 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
53 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
# Execution workspaces, services, and files
|
||
|
||
A project or task can use a managed workspace with inspectable files, Git state, services, and runtime controls. Operators can follow its lifecycle through provisioning, use, and closure.
|
||
|
||
Implementation: [workspace list](../../ui/src/pages/Workspaces.tsx), [execution workspace](../../ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.tsx), [project workspace](../../ui/src/pages/ProjectWorkspaceDetail.tsx).
|
||
|
||
Agent access: [companion](../agent-access-map/workspaces.md).
|
||
|
||
## Sub-features
|
||
|
||
- `binding`: identify the workspace actually bound to a task/run.
|
||
- `provisioning`: observe readiness and failures instead of inferring readiness from a created record.
|
||
- `services`: start/stop supported services and inspect logs and exposed endpoints.
|
||
- `files-git`: inspect workspace files and repository state used for the deliverable.
|
||
- `closure`: close/reopen or reconcile through permitted controls without losing work.
|
||
|
||
## How to get to it (user POV)
|
||
|
||
### `task-workspace`
|
||
|
||
Use the task’s workspace card or Files panel and follow its workspace link.
|
||
|
||
### `workspace-management`
|
||
|
||
Open `/workspaces`, a project workspace, or `/execution-workspaces/:workspaceId` and its Services/Configuration/Runtime logs views.
|
||
|
||
## Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
|
||
|
||
Preconditions: follow the [baseline](./README.md#before-driving-a-journey). Enable isolated-workspace UI where needed. Use an owned disposable repository and environment; record workspace ID and branch.
|
||
|
||
### `task-workspace`
|
||
|
||
Automated: [workspace card](../../ui/src/components/IssueWorkspaceCard.test.tsx) and [task binding](../../server/src/__tests__/issue-runtime-workspace-binding.test.ts) cover host/binding contracts.
|
||
|
||
Manual: Run a task that writes a small file, follow the bound workspace, and inspect the file and revision. Reload and verify links still refer to the same workspace, not another checkout or a stale run.
|
||
|
||
### `workspace-management`
|
||
|
||
Automated: [workspace detail](../../ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx) and [runtime service](../../server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts) cover UI and runtime contracts separately.
|
||
|
||
Manual: Provision a disposable workspace, wait for readiness, start an available service, open its endpoint, and inspect a real response and logs. Stop it and verify it actually stops. Exercise close/reopen only after inspecting pending changes and active runs.
|
||
|
||
## Gotchas
|
||
|
||
- UI visibility, default isolation policy, the local environment row, a workspace
|
||
record, and a running service are distinct prerequisites. A fresh instance
|
||
still needs an owned cwd/repository and runtime commands; `/workspaces` lists
|
||
existing work. Reopening depends on lifecycle, not a generic detail action.
|
||
|
||
- A link or running badge does not prove the service is reachable from the user’s browser.
|
||
- Workspace IDs, runtime leases, and repository paths are not interchangeable.
|
||
- Use [recovery](./recovery.md) for divergence/export repair and [CLI operations](./cli-operations.md) for local worktree tooling.
|