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>
5.5 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Routines, schedules, and triggers
Operators define repeatable work, configure its inputs and triggers, run it on demand or automatically, and inspect the execution history and resulting tasks.
Feature ID: routines.
Implementation: routine list, routine detail, trigger editor.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
definition:routines/definition— save the request, agent, project, variables, and execution context.triggers:routines/triggers— configure supported schedules/webhooks or other offered triggers.run-now:routines/run-now— supply inputs and create an observable routine execution.history:routines/history— inspect resulting tasks and past outcomes.management:routines/management— organize, pause/disable, archive, and distinguish plugin-managed routines.
How to get to it (user POV)
routine-editor
Open /routines, create one, and inspect /routines/:routineId and its edit sections.
trigger-history
Use the routine's trigger controls and Runs/Recent Runs/Audit links; lists also offer Run now. History records configuration versions, not executions.
Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use a disposable routine, deterministic test agent, and harmless target. Record schedule timezone and enabled state.
routine-editor
Automated: routine detail helper tests project-selector options, not the rendered editor. Routine service covers server contracts. Saving and running through the editor remain manual checks.
Manual: Save an agent, request, project, and a required variable. Reload and inspect the saved definition. Run now with a distinguishable input, follow the resulting task, and verify its output and history entry. Check a missing required input.
Variables are detected from {{name}} placeholders; mark a detected variable
Required and verify missing input prevents Run routine. Configuration can be
checked without model credentials. A successful subprocess run alone does not
complete the generated task or establish a useful task output.
trigger-history
Automated: trigger wizard is component coverage; routine integration is server integration rather than a provider-wide browser proof.
Manual: Set a near-term disposable schedule or authorized test webhook, verify one eligible execution and its source trigger, then disable it and confirm further invocations stop. Inspect a failed execution without losing its history. Remove the temporary trigger after testing.
A webhook-triggered routine can receive Sentry run-failure alerts through
/api/routine-triggers/public/:publicId/sentry-run-failures. Configure bearer
authentication, send an alert for an accessible task in the same company, and
verify one repair task for the failed run. Failures from the repair routine
and its descendants must not trigger another repair. See the routine API.
Gotchas
- Saving a schedule does not prove the scheduler invoked it.
- Timezone, overlap/concurrency rules, and plugin ownership affect behavior.
- A routine run’s task must still respect pause, access, and budget gates.
- Managed idle hosts may use the routine wake protocol to sleep between supported future runs. The host must save a durable alarm and verify the same generation before stopping. Local execution and catch-up remain unchanged. Unsupported triggers and other pending work keep it awake.
Latest skill references
Routine instructions retain stable skill mentions. After a project source syncs an upstream change, the next execution uses the latest installed version without waiting on GitHub. Record the resolved version before/after and verify a resumed execution keeps its original version. Private skill references require current project access for both the agent and its responsible person.
Storybook verification
run-now
Capability ID: routines/run-now.
Scope: ui Storybook: Mount RoutineRunVariablesDialog through actual RoutineDetail with required/default inputs, project/workspace overrides, pending, blocked and failed submission. RunButton-only no-op examples do not supply/run inputs. Production: POST /routines/{id}/run must validate variables, create one attributed execution/task and obey pause/access/budget gates; inspect actual task outcome separately. Sources: Source: RoutineRunVariablesDialog.tsx, RoutineDetail.tsx, routines.ts. Tests: RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx, routines-service.test.ts, routines-e2e.test.ts
Documentation scope: Routines, cases, and status cards
All three capabilities have recipes. Trigger/provider/timezone combinations, custom case schemas and summarizer quality need deeper cases.