DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
b7446969d7
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The chat catalog evals check that agents answer real user questions through the product. > - The case `execution-environments.choose-capable-target` asks "Which computer can run Morgan with Claude Code?" while environment reads are board-only. > - Its setup saved a built-in fake sandbox as the "unsupported" computer. The product refuses to save fake sandboxes (since #4449), so setup failed with 422 before any agent run, and the test API hid the reason. > - No computer that the product can save is advertised as unable to run Claude Code, so the original contrast cannot be built through supported APIs. > - This pull request changes the contrast to advertised support versus runtime health, grades the reply by structure instead of keywords, and makes setup failures show the product's validation reason. > - The benefit is that the case can measure its user promise, and a future setup 422 says why. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** In the full chat catalog run, setup failed with `POST /api/companies/<id>/environments returned 422; body withheld`. A focused server test shows the reason: "Built-in fake sandbox environments are reserved for internal probes and cannot be saved." The fixture payload was `driver: "sandbox", config: { provider: "fake" }`. **Expected behavior** Setup builds its computers only through supported APIs, the agent run starts, and the grader checks the user promise without reply keywords. A setup validation failure states the product's reason. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run `chat-features.runner-opencode.local.execution-environments.choose-capable-target` on master. 2. Setup posts a fake sandbox environment and gets 422. 3. `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts -t "rejects persisted fake sandbox environments"` shows the same rule. ## What Changed - `runtime-capability-choice.ts`: setup saves an SSH computer on a reserved `.invalid` host (no key, never probed) beside the local fixture computer. Production capabilities advertise Claude Code on both. The `enableEnvironments` experimental setting is still set only through `PATCH /api/instance/settings/experimental` and restored in cleanup. - Grader: removed the reply regex and keyword checks. New checks: agent gets 403 on capabilities and probe; the reply renders a link to `/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/environments` (or a target's edit page); the reply has no board-only SSH settings (host, user, path); targets (including status and metadata) and the worker are unchanged; exactly one chat turn and no tasks. `verifyResult` clicks the rendered link and checks that the page shows both computers and loads the same capabilities. - `execution-environments.yaml`: context changed from "one target supports the harness and another does not" to support versus health, with the reason. Recorded in `chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.json` `changedFields`, pinned in the manifest test, and the inventory digest is updated. - `oracleVersion` is now `paperclip.chat-catalog.runtime-capability-choice.v2` in code and in `chat-catalog-descriptors.json`; `sourceFiles` adds `internal-support.ts`, `server/src/routes/authz.ts` and `server/src/services/environment-config.ts`. - `api.ts`: cookie-session 400/409/422 failures now include the product's `error` message, at most 240 characters, with request string values (8 or more characters), the session cookie and long token-like strings redacted. `details` and all other statuses stay withheld. - Includes a cherry-pick of #20880 (agent environment denials link the environment settings page). Without it, the agent has no route to give. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts` on `runtime-capability-choice.test.ts`, `runtime-computers.test.ts`, `chat-catalog-contract.test.ts`, `chat-catalog-consistency.test.ts`, `api-private-transport.test.ts`, `api.test.ts`, `api-response-reading.test.ts`: 73 passed. - Grader calibration: valid and reworded replies with the settings link pass. Missing, unprefixed, wrong-prefix, cross-origin and wrong-page links fail. Replies with the SSH host, user or path fail. Unsupported capability, reachable host, 200 boundary, changed target or worker, an extra run and a created task fail. - `node --test tests/runner-e2e/chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.test.mjs`: 10 passed. - `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`: unchanged. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p tests/runner-e2e`: no errors in changed files. - Paid run still needed: `chat-features.runner-opencode.local.execution-environments.choose-capable-target`. ## Risks - Premise change: the case no longer has a saved computer that is advertised as unable to run Claude Code, because the product cannot save one. The "avoid an incompatible target" clause stays in the expected outcome, but no saved target exercises it. - The reply's claims about health are not graded by words. A reviewer must read the paid run's reply. - The 400/409/422 reason can show product text that the test API hid before. It is bounded and redacted. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Chat feature scenarios
This is the planning catalog for what happens when a person asks an agent to use
Paperclip. It belongs to Product E2E, alongside the existing chat
and Everyday Workflows suites. These files contain human requests, assumed context
and loosely specified outcomes. Entries alone do not run models, register tests,
or contribute passing results to a report. Two task entries now have explicit
executable Product E2E cases: tasks.create-backlog and
tasks.delegate-announcement. Their results remain in the existing E2E reports.
The feature map answers what the product lets a person do. The agent access map records which APIs and actual agent entry points exist and their boundaries. This catalog asks whether a person can accomplish that work through a conversation, including discovering a prerequisite, completing a human step and returning to work. All three reuse the same capability IDs.
Start with these requests
- Hire a Claude Code engineer:
agents.hire-claude-code, with missing-account, approval-required, denied-permission and ambiguous-wording cases. - Create a website task:
tasks.website-task, with missing-project, attached-brief, ambiguous-task, privacy and ownership-conflict cases. - Archive completed inbox items:
inbox-search.archive-done, with missing authority, partial failure and undo cases. - Read Notion:
connection-setup.notion-connectedandconnection-setup.notion-missingdeliberately use the same sentence. The second requires setup in the conversation and continuation after usable access exists. Other cases cover decline, wrong account, unassigned agent and expired access.
Reading a scenario
Each area file uses catalog.schema.json and implicitly inherits defaults.yaml. Scenario context overrides those defaults. A scenario is independent: mentions of previous turns or existing resources are fixture requirements, not dependencies on running an earlier catalog entry.
| Field | Meaning |
|---|---|
schema_version |
Version of this planning format; currently 1. |
feature |
Primary feature-map filename without .md. |
status |
Always planned; execution results belong to the existing E2E system. |
scenarios[].id |
Stable, globally unique <feature>.<scenario> identifier. |
capabilities |
Full feature-map IDs exercised by this request; may span areas. |
context |
Existing records, current identity, authority, accounts, gates and significant starting conditions, plus any later human action or fault needed for the branch. |
query |
The natural-language message a person would send, including an answer or follow-up where that is the subject of the case. |
expected_outcome |
A paragraph describing the visible conversation, resulting durable state, necessary human interaction and meaningful boundaries. |
For example, two fixtures can send “Read my Notion and tell me the latest on the launch.” In the connected fixture, the answer comes from current pages and links back to them. In the unconnected fixture, the agent requests setup, the addressed person completes it, and the original work continues. A third fixture declines setup and should receive a truthful explanation without any provider read.
Context and expected outcomes are evaluator material. Do not paste them into an agent's system prompt or teach the model which API to choose. A future fixture should expose the actual product state, ordinary production instructions, the human query and any genuine attachments or previous conversation. The model must discover the available operations normally.
What coverage means here
Every current feature-map capability has at least one associated scenario. This is inventory coverage, not complete operation coverage, source verification or live acceptance. Broad capabilities can still need more CRUD, actor, transport, provider and lifecycle variations. The maps' Policy and Gaps sections remain the source for access assumptions; recheck them against implementation when promoting an entry. The YAML does not grant permissions or promise an unimplemented UI.
The default starting point is a person talking to their CEO in Agent Chat with legitimate agent permissions. CEO is not board identity. A valid expected outcome can therefore be direct action, a grounded answer, a necessary clarification, a connection or approval request, a precise human handoff, or a truthful boundary. An unsupported operation must not be “passed” because the agent says it succeeded. A vague “you can do this in settings” is also insufficient when a supported specific control or request card exists.
Some capabilities cannot originate inside an already working chat: first server installation, login, an unfinished first-agent wizard, browser preferences and developer-only labs. Their entries explicitly describe the relevant boundary or companion journey. External MCP and channel cases also name their different surface. Preserve those labels in future selection and reporting; a successful operator, browser-only or external-client step cannot certify a direct Agent Chat action. Where only guidance is currently possible, qualifying automated chat execution requires a separate product change and updated access contract.
Conditional coverage to preserve
| Condition | Representative scenarios |
|---|---|
| Account ready / missing / wrong / expired / not assigned | connection-setup.notion-* |
| Allowed / human approval / denied / wrong resolver | agents.hire-*, questions-and-approvals.wrong-reviewer |
| Unambiguous / missing required detail / ambiguous reference | tasks.website-task, questions-and-approvals.necessary-question, tasks.ambiguous-task |
| Complete list / partial mutation / undo | tasks.organize-open-work, inbox-search.archive-partial-failure, inbox-search.restore-archive |
| Same company / other company / private resource | access.other-company, access.private-resource, tasks.private-task |
| Current decision / stale decision / duplicate answer | questions-and-approvals.ambiguous-yes, questions-and-approvals.review-plan, questions-and-approvals.duplicate-answer |
| Idle / busy / steering / stop / saved continuation | steering.*, recovery.post-stop-message |
| Known result / uncertain side effect / failed accounting | recovery.unknown-email-outcome, budgets-costs.repair-cost-recording |
| Feature enabled / disabled / different surface | cases.cases-disabled, agent-chat.chat-disabled, developer-labs.gated-lab |
| Saved record / actually ready / independently usable output | runs-adapters.validate-hire, workspaces.preview-service, documents-artifacts.produce-download |
Different starting conditions should usually be separate scenarios with the same query, so one favorable fixture cannot satisfy all branches. Outcomes can mention invariant guards without turning each paragraph into a complete executable test. When implementing a branch that currently contains several human choices, split those choices into explicit cells while preserving the planning scenario's ID as traceability metadata.
Promoting a scenario later
- Read the matching product recipe and access companion. Confirm the operation, actual admitted agent surface and permission rules; keep current gaps visible. Decide whether this is an Agent Chat journey or a named companion boundary.
- Reuse or extend the existing Product E2E fixture, catalog and report paths. Everyday Workflows already cover hiring/reuse, delegation, connection decisions and delivered work. Existing chat-hardening, chat-qualification, completion-update and confirmation suites are also documented in the E2E guide. Overlap is a reuse opportunity, not evidence that this exact query and context have passed.
- Create isolated synthetic state through supported production setup surfaces. Pin the clock, identities, policy, runtime and provider profile; record feature gates and owned test connections. Keep actual secret material out of this catalog. Follow fixture and security rules.
- Send the query through the real conversation UI. Drive each specified human answer, connection callback, navigation, reconnect or fault at its actual boundary. Preserve the source chat and linked tasks across those transitions.
- Turn the outcome into independent assertions: rendered response and correct links; saved records and attribution; exact target and audience; actual file bytes or provider receipt; absence of unintended mutations; correct return to work. Validate the oracle against a plausible wrong outcome. Success prose, a tool declaration or an accepted HTTP response alone cannot pass a journey.
- Declare the ordinary E2E execution selection, environment, turn/time/cost limits, cleanup and evidence contract. Retain failures, retries, source and definition revisions, actual model/profile, usage and missing evidence in the existing report. A changed setup or model is a separate measurement, and a missing observer is not a pass. No live or paid runs are authorized by these planning files themselves.
The first useful runnable slice is the user's three core jobs plus the paired Notion branches above. Extend from that slice across this catalog without building a second runner, scheduler, scoring system or evidence store.
Maintaining the catalog
Keep area filenames aligned with the feature map and IDs stable when wording changes. Add a capability reference only when the query and outcome exercise it; linking every scenario to every related subsystem would inflate coverage. Write specific context and an observable paragraph rather than mechanically repeating a feature description. Use cross-feature references for real combined journeys.
Before handing off edits, parse every YAML file, validate area files against the
schema, check unique IDs and nonempty prose, and reconcile capability references
with the Sub-features keys in maps/feature-map/*.md. Check both missing and
unknown IDs. The schema alone cannot validate references or uniqueness across
files. defaults.yaml is shared context and is not an area-schema document.
chat-scenario-catalog.test.ts performs these structural checks in
pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit, including the 35 areas, 244 scenario IDs and 191 mapped
capabilities. Update the inventory counts intentionally when the catalog grows.
After editing map links, also run node scripts/check-maps.mjs. That existing
check validates the maps, not this YAML catalog and not live chat behavior. Keep
structural validation and any future execution evidence separate. Do not label a
scenario passed, register a paid cell or alter default suite selection merely
because its planning text has been reviewed.
Browse by feature
The feature recipe and same-named access companion define each area's behavior and authority. Each YAML file can also reference capabilities from other areas.