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>
3.7 KiB
CLI, API clients, and local worktrees
Operators and agents can work through explicit CLI/API context, manage domain resources, inspect runs, and create isolated local worktree instances for development.
Implementation: command registry, client context, worktree commands.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
context: choose instance/API base, profile, identity, and company explicitly.domain-commands: read/write tasks, agents, projects, goals, approvals, routines, and other registered resources.outputs: work with documents/assets/skills and inspect machine-readable results.run-controls: invoke/inspect supported runs and observe actual outcomes.worktree-instances: initialize, seed, diagnose, and clean up only an owned development instance.
How to get to it (user POV)
client-context
Use paperclipai context show/list/use/set, auth/connect, and the registered resource command help.
subresources-and-runs
Use issue subresource, asset/skill, and run/heartbeat commands exposed by the CLI help.
worktree-instance
Use the documented worktree/test-drive commands in an owned checkout; inspect paperclipai worktree --help first.
Inspect root help too: worktree:make/list/merge-history/cleanup are top-level
commands rather than subcommands of worktree.
Driving it with the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use --help from the checked-out CLI to discover exact arguments. Select a disposable company and isolated context; do not inherit an unknown API target.
Pass the server origin to --api-base (without appending /api); the commands
already include the API path. issue create requires explicit --company-id
even when a profile stores a company. A persona label is not authentication proof.
client-context
Automated: context, HTTP client, and operations parity cover client contracts, not every live endpoint.
Manual: Inspect the selected context and identity, list the disposable company’s resources, create a harmless task through the supported command, and verify it in the browser. Exercise an invalid token and wrong-company resource. Inspect JSON output and nonzero errors rather than only printed success text.
subresources-and-runs
Automated: issue subresources and asset/skill parity cover command/API contracts.
Manual: Write a small task document or attach a fixture using the supported command, open it in the UI, and compare contents. Invoke eligible test work, inspect the resulting run ID/status/output, and verify denial when the actor lacks permission.
worktree-instance
Automated: worktree commands and test drive cover isolation/setup contracts.
Manual: Initialize an owned disposable worktree instance, inspect its printed paths and ports, verify health and login, and confirm any seed data belongs to the intended source. Stop and clean up only that instance; inspect preserved work before deleting any checkout.
Gotchas
- API success proves its contract, not the equivalent browser creation journey.
- The CLI command registry is broader than the UI page inventory; new command families need a recipe review.
- See instance operations for install/update/backup and feature-specific recipes for domain behavior.