Files
PaperClipAI/maps
DottaandPaperclip f7ad1dc7ca fix(workspaces): make attached project repositories writable (#18770)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip lets people assign work to AI agents and inspect the
result.
> - A task can use repositories from more than one project.
> - Remote workspace preparation treated every additional project as a
read-only source.
> - This rejected valid Git repositories before the provider started,
even when no source was read-only.
> - The task page then hid the preparation reason behind a generic
failed-attempt notice.
> - This pull request prepares authorized repositories as writable task
copies and shows redacted workspace validation errors.
> - People can work across both projects and see the reason if folder
preparation fails.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A remote task with a selected Git-backed project and another mentioned
Git-backed project failed before provider execution. It reported
`remote_workspace_readonly_sources_unsupported`. Neither project had a
read-only setting. The task notice showed only that the attempt failed.

**Expected behavior**

Each attached repository should be writable inside the task workspace.
This should preserve source access checks and saved work. A workspace
validation failure should explain its cause on the task page.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Configure remote workspace storage and a native sandbox environment.
2. Select a Git-backed project for a task.
3. Mention another authorized Git-backed project in the task.
4. Start the task. Preparation rejects the additional source before it
starts the provider.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Reproduced against `dc9f387edc`, before this change.

**Deployment mode**

Managed remote workspace storage. Local regression checks use disposable
PostgreSQL and independent filesystem processes.

Related merged work: Refs #18403 and #18504. Those changes established
remote storage and metadata-only references. They still reject
configured cross-project repositories. No duplicate writable-repository
repair was found. Refs #18774 for the test-only retention-fixture repair
reused to unblock CI.

## What Changed

- Add every configured Git repository of an authorized referenced
project to `.paperclip-repositories/` as an editable task copy.
- Retain saved paths, refs, pins and files. Recheck retained project
access and source trust. Keep explicit read-only, local-source import
and remote feature gates.
- Keep committed snapshot repository coverage separate from later
requests. Honor configured default refs, resolve remote branch names,
and publish secondary checkouts only after checkout succeeds. Share
configured-ref resolution between root and attached-repository scripts.
- Include redacted workspace validation messages in the task
interruption projection and existing failure notice. Preserve Retry
permissions and render messages as plain text. Explain retained-folder
access and trust denials while preserving the dedicated low-trust
project-access path.
- Add source, authorization, redaction, UI and save/restore regressions.
Update the implementation contract and workspace maps.
- Reuse the reviewed test-only repair from #18774. Batch the
shared-workspace history fixture, verify its complete privacy-source
map, and drain owned test bodies before cleanup. Production retention
behavior is unchanged.

## Verification

- Red before repair: four source-resolution cases failed with the
reported read-only error. The task-error projection test also failed
because it omitted the cause.
- Green: 49 source and transport tests, 16 task projection and redaction
tests, and 10 UI tests. The assembled preparation check passes. All 48
remote workspace lifecycle tests pass. The full preparation suite passed
all 126 assertions but its cleanup hook exceeded 30 seconds. The
unchanged base reproduces the same cleanup timeout with all 126
assertions passing. The focused preparation check finishes cleanly.
- The real PostgreSQL/Git lifecycle checks cover both first-turn and
later project attachments. They verify the configured release branch,
saved edits, replacement allocations, unchanged source folders,
committed archive contents, and released writers.
- Review regressions were red before repair: the default ref became
null, later attachment failed during restore, non-default remote branch
checkout failed, and invalid secondary refs left partial checkouts. They
now pass.
- The local browser shows the workspace validation explanation and Retry
action. The fixture uses a saved failed run; this proves the error
display, not a successful live sandbox run.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. Map, module-boundary and
token checks pass.
- A local two-turn acceptance probe repeated at `17ed67eaa7` used real
Codex CLI 0.165.0, `gpt-6-astra`, and `xhigh` effort. Codex wrote files
in both task repositories. The services saved them, removed the first
allocation and its Git sources, restored another allocation, and Codex
read the saved files and wrote a follow-up in both folders. This uses
the real source resolver and persistence services with a local
command-runner stand-in for sandbox transport. It does not qualify
Daytona, managed subscription forwarding, or the original task. The
first probe waited for stdin; closing the test harness pipe fixed that
setup error before provider work.
- `pnpm test:run` passed the first chat shard, then failed one chat
response concurrency assertion in the second shard. That case passes in
isolation on this head. The same isolated chat case passes on the
unchanged base. Both corresponding unchanged-base chat shards also pass
(351 and 324 tests). The cause of the earlier wider-suite chat failure
is not established. The preparation cleanup timeout and chat failure
remain part of this record.
- CI at `17ed67eaa7`: all other verification jobs passed. Browser shard
6 initially reported a request callback from the preceding test after
teardown; its single unchanged-code retry passed. Server shard 10 timed
out the 2,100-row retention confirmation fixture at 15 seconds on both
attempts. That exact case passes locally, but the repeated CI failure
required a repair. Its setup repeatedly rebuilt a shared-workspace
privacy map. The logs and failures remain part of this record.
- Reused the test-only repair from #18774 without changing its source
file. At `ab774e9418`, all 54 retention tests and all 25 ordinary
production privacy tests pass locally (79 total). Full CI
[41650626903](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41650626903)
passed on that commit, and its exact-head Greptile review was 5/5. The
fixture preserves its 2,100 rows, query-bound assertions, privacy-source
map, and completed-history test deadlines.
- The additional review identified retained-source access/trust denials
that still bypassed the workspace explanation. Real-resolver regressions
reproduced both plain-403 failures before the correction. Both now yield
a safe workspace validation explanation, while the dedicated low-trust
denial and saved workspace remain unchanged. The optional duplicate
ref-resolution block is also consolidated.
- Final review corrections: 65 source, transport and error-projection
tests passed, followed by all 48 lifecycle cases against an owned
disposable PostgreSQL database (113 total). The initial combined command
skipped the explicitly gated lifecycle suite; the subsequent dedicated
invocation enabled and passed all 48. Full workspace typecheck and build
pass. The first standalone lifecycle launcher lacked the repository
TypeScript loader; rerunning with that loader resolved its import setup
error. At previous head `7be02ea09c4ac76df560e8b517050cdf398f33f0`, full
CI [41654422329, attempt
2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41654422329/attempts/2)
passed, Greptile is 5/5 on that exact head, and all review threads are
resolved. The first attempt timed out the unchanged voice-session
report/history case at 15 seconds; 3,027 cases in its shard passed. That
exact case passed locally, then its single unchanged-code shard retry
passed. The wider-suite timeout cause remains unproven. The completed
Paperclip advisory check is neutral; its earlier findings are corrected.
No staging deployment or original-task recovery is claimed.

- Master advanced while checks ran, producing conflicts in two adjacent
test additions. Merged `27d35314be` into this branch as
`d5c8d552939c86056abf8fe10833881b2ade41a4`, preserving both
workspace-error tests and the audited Stop/receipt tests. Kept workspace
maps to minimal corrections under the updated map rule. All 82 source,
transport and interruption cases, all 48 real-database save/restore
lifecycle cases, full typecheck, build, and map checks pass locally on
the combined code. Current-head [CI
41660719214](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41660719214)
and Greptile are pending; the earlier verified head has not been merged.

## Risks

- Additional remote project repositories are now editable task copies.
Shared source folders and upstream push permissions do not change.
- Snapshot coverage uses existing workspace metadata. Older workspaces
capture their previous inventory at reservation; successful save
publication advances coverage and snapshot identity in one transaction.
No SQL migration is needed.
- A retained copy can contain files from a project that is no longer
mentioned. Preparation rechecks that project's current access and trust
policy before reuse.
- Explicit read-only descriptors still fail. Source-less projects remain
metadata-only. Local folders still require import. No migration or
provider-pack update is needed.
- Error display reads only workspace validation errors. The existing
run-secret registry and username censor run before display truncation. A
redaction failure omits the explanation.
- The retained fixture repair pauses its row trigger only within the
isolated seed transaction, rebuilds the exact source map, and restores
the trigger before commit. A rollback regression and 25 ordinary privacy
cases pass. Its paged-case test budget honors the existing bounded inner
waits; production deadlines are unchanged.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use and code execution.
The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed by
this session. The test-only fixture changes are reused from #18774,
whose model record identifies OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol. The optional live
acceptance probe uses `gpt-6-astra` with `xhigh` effort through Codex
CLI 0.165.0.

## 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>
2026-11-03 15:33:44 +00:00
..

Paperclip maps

The maps describe the same capabilities from two perspectives:

  • Feature map: what a person can do, where to reach it, and how to verify the user journey. Preserve its Poteto format.
  • Agent access map: the APIs and agent entry points for those capabilities, their permission boundaries, and access verification.

The chat scenario catalog adds natural-language requests, starting context and expected conversational outcomes for the same capability IDs. It lives with Product E2E as planning data; a scenario reference is neither a registered execution nor evidence that a journey passed.

These are sibling directories under maps/. Each feature file has a same-named agent access companion. Reuse the product map's sub-feature IDs, so tasks/create identifies the same capability in both maps. Product behavior remains governed by the implementation spec; a map cannot grant authority or redefine a permission denial as success.

Capability identifiers

The feature ID is the recipe filename without .md, such as onboarding. The full capability ID joins that feature ID and a Sub-features key with /: the company key in feature-map/onboarding.md is onboarding/company. Its agent-access-map/onboarding.md companion uses the same local company key. The feature-map index lists the existing feature and full capability IDs.

Each child page states Feature ID: `onboarding`. after its introduction or product-map link. In feature recipes, show the full ID beside the parsed local key: - `company`: `onboarding/company` — create a company. In access companions and Storybook verification guidance, keep the existing local heading and put Capability ID: `onboarding/company`. beneath it. These labels make the existing identifiers visible without changing keys, anchors, or ID generation.

Use full capability IDs in cross-feature references, Storybook annotations, tests, issues, PRs, and verification evidence. Both segments use lowercase letters, digits, and hyphens. Keep filenames and keys stable when display titles or navigation labels change; renaming either changes the capability ID.

Entry-point IDs describe a surface, such as web-wizard, and are scoped to their recipe. Reference them with a recipe link, such as onboarding.md#web-wizard, and record the capability exercised separately. Navigation section labels are not capability IDs. See IDs and references for examples.

Access contract

Every business operation needs both an API and a usable agent entry point for an actor authorized to perform it. A dedicated tool is optional when REST, the CLI, an assigned MCP client, or native search_api / call_api already provides the operation. Record which agent surfaces actually have that path; an installed CLI or optional MCP package cannot be assumed available to every native/remote run.

Track these independently:

Dimension Values and meaning
API present, missing, not-applicable, or unreviewed. Use exact methods/paths; distinguish protocols from REST.
Agent access available, partial, missing, restricted, operator-only, not-applicable, or unreviewed. Name the supported surface and actual entry point.
Policy Actor, action/grant, company/resource/ownership scope, responsible-user intersection, run requirements, work modes, and gates relevant to the operation.
Evidence source-only, verified, failed, blocked, or not-run. Source presence and successful board calls are not agent verification.
Review depth baseline records representative operations and known gaps; operation-reviewed enumerates the capability's meaningful operations and their individual access contracts.

Broad capabilities such as task properties must be split into operations before they count as operation-reviewed: renaming, metadata edits, assignment, dependencies, and lifecycle changes can use different tools and permission rules. An available read path cannot certify a write path. List/get/create/update/delete, execution/control, credential handling, and resolution are separate where their authority or transport differs. Do not duplicate request schemas from OpenAPI.

Exceptions and restrictions

Presentation-only state, static developer fixtures, and pre-start/local operator work may use not-applicable for a domain API, with a concrete reason and the existing local path. When a capability combines shared data with presentation, split the operations: browser recents do not exempt resource lookup from API coverage. Promoting local state to a shared feature requires revisiting the entry.

A board-only endpoint is restricted for agent identity, not an automatic exception or a missing API. Cite the enforced policy and record whether the agent can request the authorized human's action and observe its result. An unresolved delegation question remains in Gaps. Company access, a job title, a personal assistant's OAuth grant, or an accepted interaction does not grant board identity. Keep budget, approval, secret and execution authority intact.

Check actual route/service authorization and production tool admission. OpenAPI actor labels and scenario/evaluation tool declarations are supporting metadata; record disagreements rather than using them as proof of access. Native API fallback restrictions, tool field/scope limits, and rollout settings are part of the agent path, even when a legacy agent can call the REST endpoint directly.

Companion file format

Each agent-access-map/<area>.md has an H1, a relative link to its product file, and its feature ID, followed by one H2 backticked local key per product sub-feature. Each capability starts with its full capability ID and contains these fields:

  • Review: baseline or operation-reviewed.
  • API: presence state and exact operation IDs, or a reasoned exception.
  • Agent access: availability state and concrete entry points by surface.
  • Policy: relevant permission and runtime boundaries, with source references.
  • Evidence: evidence state, reviewed commit and sources or executed proof.
  • Verification: allowed/denied assertions and observable result; record what has actually run separately from the proposed recipe.
  • Gaps: missing APIs/paths, discovery drift, unreviewed operations or policy decisions; use none only for the enumerated scope that was reviewed.

For an operation-reviewed capability, use H3 backticked operation IDs and repeat API, Agent access, Policy, Evidence, Verification and Gaps for each operation. Use small operation names such as create, update, read, or run-now. The enclosing capability has Review: operation-reviewed only after its meaningful operations have been enumerated. The following excerpt shows one operation; include the others before using that review label:

## `definition`

Review: `operation-reviewed`.

### `create`

API: `present` — POST /api/companies/{companyId}/routines.
Agent access: `available` — agent REST, CLI routine create and native call_api
under the enabled rollout and active-run/mode gates.
Policy: same company; assigneeAgentId must be the calling agent; cite the
routine authorization and native API policy sources.
Evidence: `source-only` — reviewed commit and source links; no live proof.
Verification: `not-run` — create an owned routine; reject assignment to another
agent; inspect saved configuration, attribution and retry behavior.
Gaps: verify ownership and responsible-user resolution with a permitted agent
context; source presence alone does not qualify this operation.

Keeping the maps synchronized

Add entries only for substantial new features under the feature-map scope rule. Routine fixes, polish, refactors, performance work, and test changes do not require map updates. Correct or remove existing text only when behavior or access changes make it materially inaccurate; keep the correction local to the affected recipe or companion. Preserve IDs across renames where the capability is unchanged; update the affected cross-links together. Indexes discover recipes automatically. An API-only change may update the companion without rewriting unchanged user instructions. Update the corresponding chat scenarios when their request, assumptions or expected outcome changes; use multiple cases for meaningfully different starting conditions rather than treating an API path as conversational coverage.

maintain-verification-skill owns reconciliation of both maps. It follows changed source and authorization, checks real agent reachability, and records product gaps without implementing them during a maintenance pass. The creation skill uses this structure. verify-paperclip consumes the relevant recipes and reports evidence/drift; map editing belongs to maintenance.

Run the structural check after map changes:

node scripts/check-maps.mjs

It checks paired areas/IDs, navigation metadata, required fields, and local references. It does not certify endpoint authorization, production bindings, operation completeness, or live behavior. Source audits must check those against the existing API and tool contracts; avoid a second schema catalog or runtime.

For live access proof, use Paperclip's existing API/runner/MCP fixtures or an owned isolated instance. Use the actual agent identity, target and work mode. Assert the allowed result and relevant denial (another company/private resource, wrong owner, missing grant, invalid run, restricted mode or resolver). Mutations also need persisted state/attribution and retry behavior. Capture evidence using the existing artifact workflow; keep executed run results separate from generated maps/generated/coverage.json, which lists page references.

Local authorship and generated indexes

Change only the recipes, access contracts and stories whose behavior or intent changed. Feature recipes own navigation metadata; stories own small parameters.paperclip annotations. Keep the feature-map README's readable ID index aligned with those sources; it does not register entries for generation. Do not refresh counts in shared READMEs, inventories, fingerprints or review journals.

node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs validates and generates aggregate navigation, Storybook data, verification routes and the page inventory. All outputs live in ignored maps/generated/, ui/storybook/generated/, and the ignored Storybook preview.tsx wrapper. Start/build and UI typechecking generate their own inputs. A clean merged checkout therefore assembles both branches' changes automatically.

Git provides history and diffs. PRs, issues and CI artifacts retain review/run evidence for the named revision. Capability associations do not create whole-file review dependencies. Keep durable scenario limits in the affected recipe or story.