DottaandPaperclip
ebceb2a744
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their work. > - The controller prepares workspaces before it starts a Runner. > - A slow run can spend 30–80 seconds inside the combined workspace phase. > - Startup recovery can also delay queued work for minutes. > - Native runs also have gaps before Runner startup and after the provider result. > - Existing traces do not identify the awaited steps inside those intervals. > - This change adds closed timing boundaries around the existing operations. > - Operators can locate the wait without changing execution or exposing content. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Operator-configured OpenTelemetry diagnosis of controller preparation and startup recovery. Related: #16178, #16236 and #16285 introduced the existing preparation timing and sampling contract. #16306 and #16312 reduce separate configuration and copyback work. **Current behavior** The workspace interval combines source resolution, trust checks, provisioning, database persistence, binding and repository admission. Startup awaits accounting and native recovery before queued work resumes, but neither has a separate duration. Native backend setup and post-turn cleanup also contain unmeasured awaits. CPU profiles and a fast database probe cannot identify which await is slow. **Proposed behavior** Record workspace steps and native controller setup and cleanup with the existing hashed run ID. Record startup phases as independent, operator-sampled root spans without custom attributes. Keep the same operation order, results, failures and authorization. **Reason and benefit** These boundaries distinguish source work, database writes, repository admission and restart recovery. This is a diagnosis change. It does not claim a response-time improvement or a solved latency budget. ## What Changed - Add 14 closed workspace step names around 16 existing awaits. Repeated updates and bindings produce separate spans. - Time startup tool reviews, gateway sessions, delivery-worker readiness, accounting, plugin readiness, native recovery, hot restart, orphan reaping, retries, queued work and goal recovery. - Time native GitHub setup, wake binding, backend construction, connector assignments, MCP discovery, tool authority, companion selection and binary resolution. Time selected post-turn GitHub, coordinator and instruction cleanup awaits. - Move preparation timing to a pure shared module. Keep the existing heartbeat import as an alias. Both heartbeat and native timing skip tracer lookup when the endpoint is unset or blank, including when another library registered a provider. - Tracing lookup, callback, status and end faults cannot repeat work or replace its value or error. - Add real PostgreSQL workspace timing coverage and silent no-op/fault controls. Update the tracing contract and paired run maps. - Keep span attributes closed. Startup spans add none; workspace steps use only the existing run hash. No commands, paths, returned records or exception messages are recorded. ## Verification - Diagnostic-gap baseline: the new real workspace test fails against the unchanged workspace implementation because the expected step spans are absent. It passes with the wrappers. - Final affected coverage: **804 distinct cases pass** across seven complete suites: 698 native-executor cases, 39 real PostgreSQL workspace cases, 61 timing/context/startup cases, and six execution-configuration integration cases. The final native and unit invocations pass with no selected skips. The workspace suite passed in the initial six-file invocation on the same final workspace source. - Preserve the initial six-file attempt as failed: **7 failed and 789 passed**. All seven errors occurred during embedded PostgreSQL startup. The log reports local macOS shared-memory exhaustion. A fresh 15-case database group passes, followed by the complete 698-case native suite. These runs overlap; do not add their counts. - The new native timing assertion fails against unchanged native code because the expected spans are absent. It passes with the wrappers and retains the credential-isolation assertions. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed on the final production source. Earlier nullable-closure errors are fixed with erased assertions inside existing guards. The failed attempts remain recorded. - Normalized AST comparison: removing only timing wrappers, timing imports/local handles and erased assertions restores the original workspace, startup and native executor programs. This checks call order and policy expressions; it is not live acceptance. - The expanded head first failed two configuration integration assertions because their test providers had no endpoint. Configure the endpoint explicitly in those two tracing tests, and restore it after each test. All six cases then pass with the original credential cleanup, redaction and exact span assertions. Production is unchanged by this repair. - The first PR head failed one unchanged attachment test at its 15-second deadline in CI. The complete 32-case attachment suite passes locally with that deadline. Do not label the failed CI attempt green. The expanded head needs fresh full CI. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed, 35 areas and 176 capability IDs. `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs`: 283 files and 2,728 stories. Structural checks only; no browser, play or Storybook build claim. - `git diff --check`: passed. No added prose comments, lockfile changes or new 1,000-line crossings. - A duplicate full local test run was not started. Fresh exact-head full CI and E2E pass on `15a683bb2419960f611584f8c07cdcfc9ce3af0b`. All 56 check runs are successful or optional skipped. Superagent and legacy Snyk pass. Completed Apex review is 5/5 on this same head, with zero unresolved review threads. Commands: ```sh pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server --maxWorkers=1 --fileParallelism=false server/src/services/native-runtime/native-session-executor.test.ts server/src/services/execution-preparation-timing.test.ts server/src/startup-recovery-timing.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat/preparation-timing.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat/preparation-timing-context.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat/workspace-preparation.test.ts pnpm -r typecheck pnpm build node scripts/check-maps.mjs node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs ``` ## Risks - Configured operators receive more spans. They still follow the configured sampler and exporter. - Startup spans measure the awaited phase, including remaining readiness waits. They do not measure earlier worker construction or a provider turn. - Workspace and native setup intervals overlap their containing phases. Do not add them to the parent duration. Native timing covers named awaits, not every statement or every error path. - These spans are not yet deployed or tested against a live latency run. No first-party Telemetry event, run-log write, schema or API changes are included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact served variant and context-window size are not exposed to this task. ## 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 feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.
Browse features
Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.
Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in
maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the
Storybook guide. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature filename and entry-point ID, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result, command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant, without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page
modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module
is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested.
Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations
describe documentation scope, not runtime health.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with
the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior
and that local references still exist. Keep the same-named agent access companion
and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only
access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run
node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks;
follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.
Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:
---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---
The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas
section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and
has Scope (ui, cli, or browser),
Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions
and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API.
The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.
After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
New or updated entries follow
Poteto's feature-map examples.
Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when
their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by
Omnigent's feature map.
Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.