DottaandPaperclip
a61cf38106
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes product capabilities and user journeys. > - Small fixes and test changes have added long notes to that map. > - These notes make substantial features harder to find. > - This pull request removes those additions from the last week's changes and sets a clear rule for future additions. > - The benefit is a smaller map with stable capability IDs and accurate entry points. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Unclear or confusing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/`, the map maintenance instructions, and repository rules. **What's wrong?** Between October 27 and November 3, 2026, 115 commits changed the feature map. Many additions describe bug fixes, performance details, small UI changes, or new tests. They do not introduce substantial product features. The old synchronization instructions also encouraged a map edit for every behavior change. **Suggested fix** Add a rule that requires a substantial new feature before expanding the map. Remove minor-update notes. Keep genuine feature additions and minimal corrections to existing instructions. The review covers master through `b22ef22d56`; it does not revert application code. Conflict resolution preserves later map changes from master outside that audit snapshot. Searched open GitHub PRs and issues for related feature-map work. No duplicate cleanup was found. Substantial feature additions retained here include Coordinator (#17983), the agent YAML editor (#18036), document image galleries (#18157), remote workspace storage (#18403), native Kimi (#18391), proactive chat messages (#18374), and the Sentry receiver added in #18714. ## What Changed - Add `rules/feature-map-scope.mdc` and register its `maps/**` scope with Greptile. - Align `AGENTS.md` and the shared map contract with that rule. Routine fixes and test changes no longer require incidental map edits. - Remove 755 net lines from 23 feature recipes. Preserve all 35 areas and 192 capability IDs. - Keep substantial features and the corrections needed for current navigation, provider availability, and access boundaries. Examples from the reviewed changes: | Removed or shortened addition | Why it does not need a feature-map expansion | | --- | --- | | Rounded composer image thumbnails (#18689) | Small UI change within existing task creation. | | Connection profile reads and review-count queries (#18687, #18688) | Performance details within existing app permissions. | | Warm-session, Retry, export-capacity, and tool-wait cases | Regression details for existing execution and recovery. | | New task-search, project-context, document-persistence, and routine test journeys | Test additions for existing capabilities. The tests remain in place. | | New task button placement (#18703) | Another entry to an existing task form. | | Local browser verification notes | Run evidence belongs in the PR or test report. | ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes: 35 areas, 192 capability IDs, valid references and contract fields. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` passes: 328 files and 3,068 stories. Generated indexes remain ignored. - Compared capability keys and navigation metadata in every edited recipe with the original source. All are unchanged. - Checked rule frontmatter, Greptile registration, representative scope matches, and `git diff --check`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass on `9a60eef8eb8da9bc7c3a02203c79bec12e8c8b6b`. The final `a0801e8a939494ecde3739097a80258917428e94` commit only corrects two lines in the plugin-panel recipe; map and catalog checks pass again. - Greptile reviewed the final `a0801e8a939494ecde3739097a80258917428e94` head at 5/5 with no findings. The earlier review found one inaccurate phrase about unavailable plugin panels. The hook confirms that readiness gates automatic opening, while declared panels remain selectable. The final documentation commit corrects that phrase and the thread is resolved. Paperclip's refreshed review is advisory and remains queued. - The earlier CI run failed two assertions: [server 4/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41634761842/job/125914173960) counted three Anthropic identity calls instead of two in `connection-management.integration.test.ts`; [chat 1/3](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41634761842/job/125914174257) observed zero publications instead of one in the same-principal endpoint-settlement case. Both exact tests pass locally on the rebased head. This PR changes neither their source nor their expectations. These failed results remain historical evidence. - Final-head CI passed server 4/12 and all other suites except the first [chat 1/3 attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41637834618/job/125925926131), which repeated the same zero-publication assertion. The browser gate passed. The single failed-job retry was accepted for this unchanged head in [workflow attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41637834618/attempts/2). [Chat 1/3 passed on that retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41637834618/job/125933199635), and the aggregate verification gate passed. Both required gates, `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`, are green on `a0801e8a939494ecde3739097a80258917428e94`. The one retry allowance is consumed. - The first full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was interrupted before completion so master could be rebased without changing source under running tests. It is not a passing test result. Full current-head CI remains required. - No application code, tests, schemas, or lockfiles changed. ## Risks - Low runtime risk. This change only edits documentation and review guidance. - Detailed regression instructions become less visible in the feature map. Their tests and technical documentation remain available. - Some additions mix a new feature with a small fix. Those blocks retain the feature and shorten the incidental detail. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, Git history inspection, repository tools, and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific model deployment ID or context-window size. ## 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 — map, catalog, capability-ID, and rule-scope checks; full Vitest limits are stated above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable — no new runtime tests apply to this documentation change - [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>
6.1 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Projects and repositories
People group tasks into projects, attach goals and repositories, and configure the context and defaults used by project work.
Feature ID: projects.
Implementation: project list, project detail.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
lifecycle:projects/lifecycle— create, name, organize, and archive projects.task-context:projects/task-context— inspect project tasks and create work in the selected project.repositories:projects/repositories— configure repository/workspace sources and verify usable checkouts.defaults:projects/defaults— maintain project instructions, environment, goal, and budget context where offered.privacy:projects/privacy— create private projects, inspect access members, and manage their audience without publishing protected tasks.
How to get to it (user POV)
project-list
Open /projects, create a project, and enter its overview or Issues view.
repository-settings
Open /projects/:projectId/configuration and its repository/workspace settings.
Workspace storage shows the inherited installed default and allows an explicit
provider or Core/local choice. Conflicting defaults remain visible for repair.
project-access
Open /projects/:projectId/configuration, use Private project, and choose Manage access or View access according to your authority. Create a private project through the supported creation surface or API when needed for a fixture.
Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use a disposable project and a small repository you can access; record checkout and credential ownership.
project-list
Automated: projects UI and project detail are component tests.
Manual: Create a project, add a task from its view, and reload. Verify the task belongs to that project, list counts are plausible, and links preserve company scope. Archive only the disposable project and inspect list/task behavior.
repository-settings
Automated: provider defaults and API overrides and storage selection UI cover inherited choices, explicit overrides, and configuration errors. These offline checks do not qualify live provider storage.
Automated: repository persistence and repository browser suite cover configured repository workflows.
Manual: Attach a small repository, save, and create a project task. Inspect the actual checkout/revision used by its run. Test an invalid repository and missing credentials without treating a saved URL as a working workspace.
project-access
Automated: Privacy production review covers persisted project audience changes, task inheritance, and actor intersections. Privacy controls covers UI controls and task-cache invalidation after membership removal. These tests do not prove both people’s live navigation.
Manual: As an ordinary authenticated project owner, create a private project and task. Add another company person and an eligible agent through Manage access, reload, and inspect their project discovery and task reads. The added person can view members but cannot change the audience. Remove them, reload their session, and retry direct project/task links. Confirm removing the owner is unavailable or rejected. Add a direct grant for one private task, then open the project to the company after inspecting the confirmation. Verify the project becomes discoverable, protected tasks remain private, and project-derived task access no longer substitutes for direct task access. Test the agent and its responsible person separately.
Sources: Project properties, access members, project routes, and authorization.
Gotchas
-
A private project’s member list is readable to an authorized project reader. Task access-grant inspection has a stricter management boundary.
-
/overviewnow selects Configuration, not a distinct overview page. Personal join/leave and star controls have their own persistence and should be checked when affected; Star/Unstar {project name} is the visible star action. -
Project name slugs change on rename and have no historical alias lookup. Reopen a renamed project through its stable UUID route, wait for the current Configuration form, and record the newly normalized URL before reloading.
-
Project repository configuration and a provisioned execution workspace are different records.
-
See workspaces, goals, and budgets for those features.
-
Do not assume a deleted or archived project should erase its historical task evidence.
Automatic repository skills
Creating or attaching a GitHub repository enqueues skill import without another setup step. Check Skills → Sources and the installed library afterward. Ordinary edits to older projects do not adopt their repositories; explicit adoption belongs in Sources. Removing a repository retains installed skills and originating project access but stops its automatic tracking. Changing the ref does not retarget existing skill references.
Documentation scope: Projects and execution workspaces
Provider-specific provisioning, multi-repository/submodule edge cases, Git reconciliation variants, and all service exposure combinations require deeper recipes.