DottaandPaperclip
c2daf906d9
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work and delivers its results.
> - One task can need several runs and a saved workspace.
> - A run can succeed while the task waits for its next run.
> - Chat fallback treated that success as completion and dropped useful
status.
> - Monitor runs also lost their conversation origin, and text-question
cards lost their prompt.
> - This change preserves the task outcome and exact delivery authority
across those boundaries.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A Slack task requested a repository, yielded to a scheduled
continuation, and showed only a generic completion message. The next run
could not publish through the original conversation. A later text
question showed its title and Respond button without the question
context. Workspace recovery could commit the saved monitor result
without restoring its explanation.
**Expected behavior**
The original conversation shows the accepted continuation explanation,
receives the resumed result, and displays the full question when input
is needed. A successful provider run does not claim that unfinished work
is complete. Recovery delivers saved output once without another
provider result.
**Steps to reproduce**
Start an authorized chat task, prepare a repository for a later
admission, save a monitor wait, and let that monitor resume the task.
Repeat with workspace finalization interrupted and with a free-text
question. Inspect the originating conversation and the persisted output.
Related merged work: #16806 and #16975. The open monitor and recovery
changes found during duplicate search address different status and
liveness policies.
## What Changed
- Keep committed monitor summaries visible through the shared board and
chat response resolver. Preserve interaction ownership and comment
reuse.
- Recover a saved monitor explanation after finalization, with no
repeated provider result.
- Prove monitor publication origin from the admitted wake and matching
scheduling receipt. Match company, task, agent, requester, and schedule;
reject ambiguous sources.
- Include monitor continuations in the existing publication scan and use
the canonical task binding. Keep current transport authorization.
- Suppress completion fallback for yielded results. Explain missing
final output without claiming completion.
- Include question summaries, prompts, and help text in modal-backed
cards. Keep answered text private.
- Update execution semantics, capability maps, and the bounded
reliability plan.
## Verification
- Original source fails four composed PostgreSQL regressions: monitor
origin, yielded completion, question body, and saved-summary recovery.
The shared response resolver also fails before the repair.
- Repaired focused cohort: 148 tests pass across publication, question
privacy, scheduler, and native monitor suites. These use real disposable
PostgreSQL; they do not qualify live Slack.
- Full workspace typecheck and production build pass locally. Map checks
and whitespace checks pass.
- All CI gates pass at 1701c48f17.
Greptile reports 5/5. Both review findings are resolved. The local
full-suite run remains separate.
- The added 21-admission lineage and cycle regressions pass with the
complete 11-test database suite.
- The larger live Codex/Claude qualification and deployed staging
acceptance remain in progress. This PR does not claim that milestone is
complete.
## Risks
- Incorrect lineage could disclose output to another conversation. The
resolver requires one exact receipt-backed source and the worker still
checks current delivery authority.
- Status recovery could duplicate output or compete with a question. The
source-run presentation marker, saved-comment reuse, interaction
arbitration, and replay tests protect those boundaries.
- No database migration or public task-status change is required.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository editing, terminal tests, and
browser inspection. The runtime does not expose an exact deployment
model 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
- [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
- [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>
Paperclip agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
Use full capability IDs when referring to access contracts outside their file:
onboarding/company means the company capability in onboarding.md in both maps.
The feature index lists feature and
capability IDs; IDs and references
explains entry-point references and stable naming.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api requires operator rollout admission, a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.