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>
11 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Steering and queued messages
People can send follow-ups while an agent works, manage saved messages that have not been consumed, and choose when to steer or interrupt. Stopping a run and pausing a task are separate controls. The UI must preserve the message, explain why it is waiting, and only claim delivery after an authoritative acknowledgement.
Feature ID: steering.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
queue:steering/queue— a busy task saves follow-ups and shows their order and wait reason.edit-order-discard:steering/edit-order-discard— edit full Markdown, reorder, and discard eligible saved messages; ownership, revision conflicts, and already-dispatched states matter.steer:steering/steer— explicit user action sends a queued message into a compatible active run; unavailable capabilities and provider rejection remain visible.interrupt:steering/interrupt— stop the current execution and carry accepted follow-ups into the eligible continuation without delivering them twice.stop-and-pause:steering/stop-and-pause— distinguish stop-in-flight, confirmed stop, task/ancestor pause, agent pause, and budget hold. Resume must respect the actual gate.drafts:steering/drafts— switching tasks, reloading, and uncertain submission retain the correct task's draft and attachment receipts.approval-queue:steering/approval-queue— answered questions and accepted approvals have durable delivery distinct from editable ordinary comments.
How to get to it (user POV)
task-composer
Open an assigned task (/issues/:issueId). Start work, then send follow-ups while
the agent runs. Use the queued-message controls to edit, reorder, discard,
steer, or interrupt when offered. Use the composer stop/pause control separately.
Both task presentations need attention when changing their shared behavior.
agent-chat
Enable Agent Chat and open an agent conversation. Send another message during
a reply and inspect the shared queue. /new starts fresh provider context in
the same conversation; it is an ordered boundary, not a normal model prompt.
request-response
Answer an earlier question or accept a confirmation while successor work is active on the task. Inspect the resulting queued response and its available steer/interrupt control instead of assuming acceptance interrupted execution.
external-channel
Send a follow-up from a linked external chat conversation while its task is running. Use that provider's supported stop/control affordance where available; inspect the resulting task and run in Paperclip.
Driving it
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use an agent that stays busy long enough to inspect the queue. Record the adapter, native/legacy mode, and advertised steering capability. Test supported and unsupported steering without treating an absent capability as a product failure.
task-composer
Automated: queued-message UI covers order, failure restoration, unavailable steering, stale revisions, and discard acknowledgements. Queue routes cover durable ordering, authorization, steering acknowledgements, interrupt recovery, and concurrent dispatch. Composer covers drafts and uncertain saves.
Task-detail delivery races cover a consumed message whose send response and queue snapshot arrive late. A started run's input receipt removes that message from pending, while a separate unsent message stays queued. Admission to a run that has not started is not delivery. A later retry of the same message remains visible in its new authoritative queue. Receipts retain the primary wake and coalesced source queue IDs. They clear a late snapshot even when its target names the preceding run or is null.
pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/task-chat/TaskChatQueuedMessages.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts
Automated stop coverage is separate: composer stop with its configuration and ACP stop/continuation. Inspect their fixture and opt-in prerequisites; skipped native cases are not native proof. The explicit follow-up/Stop/resume journey requires a later user message before continuation. The database Stop accounting regression checks complete and late receipts without another provider turn. These are separate scopes; database success does not establish deployed or Slack acceptance.
Manual: queue three distinguishable messages. Edit one, reorder them, reload, and confirm the saved order. Discard one and confirm it never reaches execution. After a queued message enters a started run, confirm it leaves pending even if the send response arrives later. Reload and confirm it appears once in history. Steer one while busy and verify the agent receives that exact message once. Repeat with a rejected steer and a stale second-tab edit; the UI must preserve retryable content and explain the conflict. On a fresh run, interrupt with a queued follow-up and verify confirmed stop followed by one continuation. Pause the task (and separately its ancestor), preserve a draft, then resume the actual hold; no hidden send should occur while paused. Check both task presentations when available; the named component tests do not prove every host integration.
Fixture-backed recovery check: start with an agent in its completed paused
lifecycle state, then insert a new accepted deferred_issue_execution request
through the PostgreSQL recovery fixture.
Normal wake admission
rejects paused agents, so this pending state cannot be created by sending a new
message through the ordinary UI or API. Let release and periodic recovery run.
Confirm that the saved request remains pending. Resume the agent, wait for its
lifecycle to become ready, and verify one delivery. An explicit Pause cancels
older queued work; those cancelled receipts must not be replayed. A paused
request must not prevent another eligible recipient's queued work from proceeding.
agent-chat
Automated: agent chat sessions covers persistent conversation/session behavior with deterministic harness fixtures; shared composer tests cover the controls. These do not qualify live steering for every harness.
Manual: queue two follow-ups while the conversation replies. Reload, edit or
discard one, then let the other run. Verify one reply and unchanged conversation
identity. Send /new, then a new prompt; old history remains visible, and the
new turn uses fresh provider context. Verify a useful answer rather than only
the session-divider UI. Repeat the queue operations with a live capable harness
when the change touches delivery.
request-response
Automated: response delivery proves queueing/coalescing and retry-safe receipts. The queue-route suite tests separate comment and approval queues, explicit steering, and fresh-session restrictions on plan approvals.
Manual: answer an old question during a new run, confirm that it is saved and queued, and let the active run end. Verify exactly one continuation with the answer. Repeat an eligible approval with explicit steer; another approval that requires a fresh session must not offer same-turn delivery. Do not edit an approval outcome through an ordinary queued-message editor.
external-channel
Automated: chat interaction arbitration covers backend arbitration with simulated requests. It is not a provider UI test.
Manual: send two distinguishable messages through one disposable linked conversation while busy. Inspect their saved task order, run delivery, and external reply. Check a duplicate provider event and unauthorized sender. Provider-specific control semantics and real transport timing remain a manual gap; do not assume browser queue controls are available in every channel.
Gotchas
- Paperclip's queue is server-owned once saved; it is not Omnigent's unsent browser draft buffer. A stale edit must not overwrite a consumed message.
- Steer availability depends on the active runtime's capability, not its brand name. A UI row disappearing optimistically does not prove provider receipt.
- Interrupt, stop, task pause, agent pause, and budget pause have different effects. A running indicator disappearing does not prove remote work stopped.
- An interrupted run may need verified cleanup before a saved follow-up can start. Preserve and inspect the wait reason; see recovery.
- A healthy idle Agent Chat is waiting for input, not stranded unfinished work.
Storybook verification
drafts
Capability ID: steering/drafts.
Scope: ui Storybook: Task-keyed restored draft and attachment receipts; task switch/reload, failed send and uncertain-save recovery. Production: Retain correct task draft across navigation and reload; inspect authoritative saved receipt before claiming delivery; do not clear storage on every harness mount. Sources: Source: TaskChatComposer.tsx, composer-draft.ts. Tests: TaskChatComposer.test.tsx, issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts
approval-queue
Capability ID: steering/approval-queue.
Scope: ui Storybook: Answered question/accepted approval delivery waiting, eligible steer/interrupt, failed delivery and fresh-session-only approval. Production: Keep response delivery durable and distinct from editable comments; coalesce once, enforce fresh-session restrictions and deduplicate concurrent/retried continuation. Sources: Source: TaskChatQueuedMessages.tsx, question-response-delivery.ts. Tests: TaskChatQueuedMessages.test.tsx, question-response-delivery.test.ts, issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts