DottaandPaperclip
9ef434fe79
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its feature map describes user journeys and their verification paths. > - The map already defines feature IDs and full capability IDs. > - The README and child pages did not show those IDs consistently. > - Readers need those IDs to connect issues, tests, stories, and evidence. > - This pull request adds a recipe index and displays the existing IDs. > - The benefit is clear references across the product and agent access maps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/README.md`, the child recipes, and their agent access companions. **What's wrong?** The README sends readers to Storybook to browse features. Child pages show local keys, such as `installation`, without the full `plugins/installation` ID. Readers must inspect the generator to find the full reference. **Suggested fix** List recipe links and existing IDs in the README. Show each feature ID and full capability ID in its child pages. Explain capability IDs and entry-point references. Keep the current keys and anchors. Related work: Refs #15288. Refs #16052. Refs #15983. No duplicate open PR or issue was found by title search. ## What Changed - Add an index grouped by feature area. It lists every recipe, feature ID, and full capability ID. - Explain how IDs are formed and used in issues, tests, Storybook, and evidence. - Add feature IDs to all product recipes and agent access companions. - Show full capability IDs beside recipe keys and below access and Storybook guidance headings. - Preserve existing keys, heading anchors, and generated ID values. Keep the latest upstream company capability in the index. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes for 34 feature families and 175 capability IDs. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes all 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` passes on this checkout and generates the feature indexes and overview inputs. - `git diff --check` passes. - A source comparison confirms that the README matches the recipe index. After removal of the added ID labels, all 68 child pages match the upstream prose and headings. - Full workspace checks were attempted: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`. They could not start because the local pnpm wrapper could not fetch and verify the pinned pnpm 9.15.4 release. This checkout also has no workspace dependencies installed. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` could not run because `storybook/internal/csf-tools` is not installed. The direct map and index checks above pass without that dependency. - Remote typecheck, release-registry, and full build checks passed. The first attempts of [server shard 3/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758430448) and [server shard 12/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758429932) stopped after their runners received a shutdown signal. The test steps were canceled. GitHub rejects the rerun request with HTTP 403: "The workflow run containing this job is already running". Five other CI jobs remain active. The next action is to rerun the two interrupted shards after workflow 39460473910 ends. No application changes were made to address these runner interruptions. - To inspect the result, open the feature-map README, follow a recipe link, and compare its full capability IDs with its access companion. ## Risks - Low risk. The change updates map documentation only. It changes no application code or ID schema. - The readable README index and child labels repeat source IDs. Keep them aligned when a capability changes. - Generated capability descriptions now include the visible ID prefix. Generated IDs, labels, navigation order, and verification fields remain the same. - Full local workspace checks and catalog generation remain unverified for the environment reasons above. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-6.1-sol`, with a 475,000-token context window and `xhigh` reasoning effort. The model used local file tools, shell commands, and GitHub CLI access. ## 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 - [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>
4.4 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Developer previews and diagnostic labs
Contributors can inspect design examples, interaction labs, and performance fixtures. These are development surfaces and do not count as production feature verification.
Feature ID: developer-labs.
Implementation: route registration, design guide, long-thread fixture.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
design:developer-labs/design— inspect shared components and layout examples in the design guide or Storybook.interaction-labs:developer-labs/interaction-labs— exercise synthetic bootstrap, task-chat, denial, and collaboration states.performance:developer-labs/performance— measure the provided long-thread fixture with known data and environment.route-gates:developer-labs/route-gates— distinguish dev-only, experimental, historical, and fallback surfaces.
How to get to it (user POV)
preview-lab
Use /design-guide, registered /ux-lab/... routes, or Storybook; consult ui/src/App.tsx for the current gated set.
performance-fixture
Open /tests/perf/long-thread only in an appropriate development environment.
Driving it with Playwright
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use a development/test environment. Confirm the route is registered for the current build before claiming the page is available.
preview-lab
Automated: onboarding variant is an example component contract. There is no claim of full automated acceptance coverage for every lab page.
Manual: Open the specific fixture state, inspect controls and layout, then repeat the affected interaction in the actual product host. Report fixture results separately from persisted task/company results.
performance-fixture
Automated: task thread component does not establish a performance budget. Timing/scroll measurements need a dedicated browser run.
Manual: Record browser/build/data size, exercise scrolling and rendering in the long-thread fixture, and retain timing or trace evidence. Its composer is disabled; test composing separately in a real task. Confirm representative real-task behavior before extrapolating fixture measurements.
Gotchas
- An unmounted or obsolete lab file remains in the conservative page inventory but is not a shipped entry point.
- Intended developer use is not a universal runtime gate: Design Guide and global lab/performance routes are also registered in production builds.
- Screenshots of a lab do not prove live provider behavior, persistence, or authorization.
Storybook verification
performance
Capability ID: developer-labs/performance.
Scope: browser Storybook: A screenshot/story is optional context, not the required performance evidence. Production: Use existing browser performance harnesses. Record build/browser/data size, timing/trace and scrolling. Long-thread fixture has a disabled composer; task-chat HTML harness uses a plain textarea and simulated updates. Sources: Source: IssueChatLongThreadPerf.tsx, README.md, README.md. Tests: scrollback.spec.ts, issue-detail.perf.spec.ts
route-gates
Capability ID: developer-labs/route-gates.
Scope: browser Storybook: No isolated story required to prove actual route registration, redirects or gates; isolated gated-control examples remain useful. Production: Drive real routes under their actual development, experimental, production and fallback settings. Do not assume every lab is dev-only: global long-thread/lab/design routes also exist in production registration. Sources: Source: App.tsx. Tests: No dedicated test asserted; use the feature recipe.
Documentation scope: Developer labs and fallback pages
Developer and fallback surfaces are identified. Each synthetic fixture and performance budget is not a production journey and needs its own measurement.