## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Slack conversations store that work in tasks and comments. > - A native thread must keep its task when work finishes. > - The server treated all DMs as linear conversations. > - A reply in a completed DM thread therefore started a new task without its earlier comments. > - This pull request uses the native thread identity for task continuity. > - People can continue the same work with its saved context. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A reply in a Slack DM thread created a new task after the preceding task was Done or Cancelled. It also created a new task when the saved conversation was completed. The new task lacked earlier comments. **Expected behavior** A native Slack thread keeps one task in channels and DMs. Later replies retain earlier user and agent comments. Top-level DMs keep their existing task generation rules. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start work in a Slack DM thread. 2. Mark its task Done. 3. Reply in the same thread. 4. Before this fix, the reply creates another task. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from master ateb5c24b61c. **Deployment mode** Built from source. Tests use local PostgreSQL and provider fixtures. Related PR: #16151 covers the DM mention exemption. This fix preserves that behavior. GitHub searches found no duplicate fix for completion routing. ## What Changed - Detect Slack native thread roots in the Slack module. - Classify native DM threads as persistent threads for task routing. - Select the resource type from the actual DM destination. Keep DM access checks. - Preserve DM task controls. Select the latest DM task even after completion. Require a delivered control receipt before an explicit new task generation. - Add completion, duplicate, saved-history, separate-root, Idle, and explicit-control regressions. - Document the task boundary. Correct only the inaccurate DM-thread statement in the existing feature recipe. ## Verification - Before the production edit, the new PostgreSQL regression failed in all three threaded-DM completion cases: two conversations existed instead of one. The channel-thread and top-level-DM controls passed. - The initial eight routing cases passed. CI then found five existing slash-control failures. All five reproduced locally. Greptile reported the same regression at 4/5. - The first correction passed all 16 focused PostgreSQL cases. Secondary review then found that slash commands skipped Done, Cancelled, and completed DM tasks. Four new cases failed before the lookup change. Commit23ff4f04fpassed all 20 focused cases, including status, explicit new/close, delivered receipts, and a new task generation. The original same-thread continuity cases still pass. - Command: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'preserves Slack thread history across completion|keeps separate Slack DM thread roots|returns two answered Slack turns to Idle|binds Slack DM slash controls|treats D-prefixed Slack status|serializes duplicate Slack admission with an owned provider-reply settlement|suppresses a queued provider reply when destination reach|continues to accept authenticated Slack slash close/new'`. - Map validation and `git diff --check` passed. Map validation proves structure only. - All 107 neighboring Slack adapter, SDK runtime, and receipt tests passed across three files. - The initial complete server typecheck passed with `PAPERCLIP_TYPECHECK_LOW_MEMORY=1 pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`, including all three test-tree shards. - Full local recursive typecheck and build stopped because this workspace has no `cargo`. A separate default server typecheck was killed under concurrent memory load; its lower-memory rerun passed. The broad local test run was interrupted to free memory, so no full-local-suite pass is claimed. The complete server typecheck passed again for correction367b6f9b3, including all three test-tree shards. The [full CI pipeline](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42250458200) passed for exact head367b6f9b3f. This includes typecheck, build, all chat and other test lanes, browser E2E, Runner, and aggregate verify. The first CI run passed broad typecheck, build, E2E, Runner, and other test groups, but its chat failures remain recorded above. - The initial regression launch could not load the unbuilt plugin SDK. It ran after building the required workspace dependencies. A test-only resource assertion was corrected to read persisted DM resources, which the settings list omits. The completed-conversation case preserves an existing review status. - The initial correction test used a follow-up timestamp older than the delivered control. The chronology gate correctly rejected it. A current provider timestamp now verifies the new generation without weakening that gate. - Greptile's map finding was addressed by removing recipe expansions and all agent-access map changes. Both review threads have replies and are resolved. Greptile reviewed exact head367b6f9b3fat [5/5 with zero new findings](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/19486#issuecomment-6689117840). The secondary Paperclip Review rated that head 4/5 and found the completed-task slash lookup error. Commit23ff4f04ffixes this finding. Greptile and Paperclip Review both rate head23ff4f04f6at 5/5. All three review threads are resolved. The [full CI pipeline](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42255926149) now passes on this exact head. This includes typecheck, build, all test lanes, browser E2E, Runner checks, Canary Dry Run, and aggregate verify. All checks are terminal: 54 success, 1 neutral, and 3 skipped. Snyk also passes. The PR has no merge conflict. - The complete server typecheck passed again on23ff4f04f, including all three test-tree shards. - The new test first asserted the conversation-list state. That API displays terminal tasks as completed before the control is sent. The test now reads stored binding state to check that completion waits for the delivered receipt. - No live Slack send or deployment was performed. ## Risks - Native DM threads now reopen the existing task after Done or Cancelled. Explicit new/close controls still release the binding after their response is delivered. Top-level DMs still start new generations after completion. - Existing split tasks stay separate. Future replies use the latest saved binding. This change does not merge old tasks or copy surrounding DM history into a newly created thread. - No schema, credential, provider scope, or permission changes are required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, repository editing, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more precise serving 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 <[email protected]>
Paperclip maps
The maps describe the same capabilities from two perspectives:
- Feature map: what a person can do, where to reach it, and how to verify the user journey. Preserve its Poteto format.
- Agent access map: the APIs and agent entry points for those capabilities, their permission boundaries, and access verification.
The chat scenario catalog adds natural-language requests, starting context and expected conversational outcomes for the same capability IDs. It lives with Product E2E as planning data; a scenario reference is neither a registered execution nor evidence that a journey passed.
These are sibling directories under maps/. Each feature file has a same-named
agent access companion. Reuse the product map's sub-feature IDs, so tasks/create
identifies the same capability in both maps. Product behavior remains governed by
the implementation spec; a map cannot grant
authority or redefine a permission denial as success.
Capability identifiers
The feature ID is the recipe filename without .md, such as onboarding.
The full capability ID joins that feature ID and a Sub-features key with /:
the company key in feature-map/onboarding.md is onboarding/company.
Its agent-access-map/onboarding.md companion uses the same local company key.
The feature-map index lists the existing
feature and full capability IDs.
Each child page states Feature ID: `onboarding`. after its introduction or
product-map link. In feature recipes, show the full ID beside the parsed local
key: - `company`: `onboarding/company` — create a company. In access
companions and Storybook verification guidance, keep the existing local heading
and put Capability ID: `onboarding/company`. beneath it. These labels make
the existing identifiers visible without changing keys, anchors, or ID generation.
Use full capability IDs in cross-feature references, Storybook annotations, tests, issues, PRs, and verification evidence. Both segments use lowercase letters, digits, and hyphens. Keep filenames and keys stable when display titles or navigation labels change; renaming either changes the capability ID.
Entry-point IDs describe a surface, such as web-wizard, and are scoped to their
recipe. Reference them with a recipe link, such as
onboarding.md#web-wizard, and record the
capability exercised separately. Navigation section labels are not capability IDs.
See IDs and references for examples.
Access contract
Every business operation needs both an API and a usable agent entry point for an
actor authorized to perform it. A dedicated tool is optional when REST, the CLI,
an assigned MCP client, or native search_api / call_api already provides the
operation. Record which agent surfaces actually have that path; an installed CLI
or optional MCP package cannot be assumed available to every native/remote run.
Track these independently:
| Dimension | Values and meaning |
|---|---|
| API | present, missing, not-applicable, or unreviewed. Use exact methods/paths; distinguish protocols from REST. |
| Agent access | available, partial, missing, restricted, operator-only, not-applicable, or unreviewed. Name the supported surface and actual entry point. |
| Policy | Actor, action/grant, company/resource/ownership scope, responsible-user intersection, run requirements, work modes, and gates relevant to the operation. |
| Evidence | source-only, verified, failed, blocked, or not-run. Source presence and successful board calls are not agent verification. |
| Review depth | baseline records representative operations and known gaps; operation-reviewed enumerates the capability's meaningful operations and their individual access contracts. |
Broad capabilities such as task properties must be split into operations before they count as operation-reviewed: renaming, metadata edits, assignment, dependencies, and lifecycle changes can use different tools and permission rules. An available read path cannot certify a write path. List/get/create/update/delete, execution/control, credential handling, and resolution are separate where their authority or transport differs. Do not duplicate request schemas from OpenAPI.
Exceptions and restrictions
Presentation-only state, static developer fixtures, and pre-start/local operator
work may use not-applicable for a domain API, with a concrete reason and the
existing local path. When a capability combines shared data with presentation,
split the operations: browser recents do not exempt resource lookup from API
coverage. Promoting local state to a shared feature requires revisiting the entry.
A board-only endpoint is restricted for agent identity, not an automatic
exception or a missing API. Cite the enforced policy and record whether the
agent can request the authorized human's action and observe its result. An
unresolved delegation question remains in Gaps. Company access, a job title,
a personal assistant's OAuth grant, or an accepted interaction does not grant
board identity. Keep budget, approval, secret and execution authority intact.
Check actual route/service authorization and production tool admission. OpenAPI actor labels and scenario/evaluation tool declarations are supporting metadata; record disagreements rather than using them as proof of access. Native API fallback restrictions, tool field/scope limits, and rollout settings are part of the agent path, even when a legacy agent can call the REST endpoint directly.
Companion file format
Each agent-access-map/<area>.md has an H1, a relative link to its product file,
and its feature ID, followed by one H2 backticked local key per product
sub-feature. Each capability starts with its full capability ID and contains
these fields:
- Review:
baselineoroperation-reviewed. - API: presence state and exact operation IDs, or a reasoned exception.
- Agent access: availability state and concrete entry points by surface.
- Policy: relevant permission and runtime boundaries, with source references.
- Evidence: evidence state, reviewed commit and sources or executed proof.
- Verification: allowed/denied assertions and observable result; record what has actually run separately from the proposed recipe.
- Gaps: missing APIs/paths, discovery drift, unreviewed operations or policy
decisions; use
noneonly for the enumerated scope that was reviewed.
For an operation-reviewed capability, use H3 backticked operation IDs and repeat
API, Agent access, Policy, Evidence, Verification and Gaps for each operation.
Use small operation names such as create, update, read, or run-now.
The enclosing capability has Review: operation-reviewed only after its
meaningful operations have been enumerated. The following excerpt shows one
operation; include the others before using that review label:
## `definition`
Review: `operation-reviewed`.
### `create`
API: `present` — POST /api/companies/{companyId}/routines.
Agent access: `available` — agent REST, CLI routine create and native call_api
under the enabled rollout and active-run/mode gates.
Policy: same company; assigneeAgentId must be the calling agent; cite the
routine authorization and native API policy sources.
Evidence: `source-only` — reviewed commit and source links; no live proof.
Verification: `not-run` — create an owned routine; reject assignment to another
agent; inspect saved configuration, attribution and retry behavior.
Gaps: verify ownership and responsible-user resolution with a permitted agent
context; source presence alone does not qualify this operation.
Keeping the maps synchronized
Add entries only for substantial new features under the feature-map scope rule. Routine fixes, polish, refactors, performance work, and test changes do not require map updates. Correct or remove existing text only when behavior or access changes make it materially inaccurate; keep the correction local to the affected recipe or companion. Preserve IDs across renames where the capability is unchanged; update the affected cross-links together. Indexes discover recipes automatically. An API-only change may update the companion without rewriting unchanged user instructions. Update the corresponding chat scenarios when their request, assumptions or expected outcome changes; use multiple cases for meaningfully different starting conditions rather than treating an API path as conversational coverage.
maintain-verification-skill owns reconciliation of both maps. It follows changed source and authorization, checks real agent reachability, and records product gaps without implementing them during a maintenance pass. The creation skill uses this structure. verify-paperclip consumes the relevant recipes and reports evidence/drift; map editing belongs to maintenance.
Run the structural check after map changes:
node scripts/check-maps.mjs
It checks paired areas/IDs, navigation metadata, required fields, and local references. It does not certify endpoint authorization, production bindings, operation completeness, or live behavior. Source audits must check those against the existing API and tool contracts; avoid a second schema catalog or runtime.
For live access proof, use Paperclip's existing API/runner/MCP fixtures or an owned
isolated instance. Use the actual agent identity, target and work mode. Assert the
allowed result and relevant denial (another company/private resource, wrong
owner, missing grant, invalid run, restricted mode or resolver). Mutations also
need persisted state/attribution and retry behavior. Capture evidence using the
existing artifact workflow; keep executed run results
separate from generated maps/generated/coverage.json, which lists page references.
Local authorship and generated indexes
Change only the recipes, access contracts and stories whose behavior or intent
changed. Feature recipes own navigation metadata; stories own small
parameters.paperclip annotations. Keep the feature-map README's readable ID
index aligned with those sources; it does not register entries for generation.
Do not refresh counts in shared READMEs, inventories, fingerprints or review
journals.
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs validates and generates aggregate navigation,
Storybook data, verification routes and the page inventory. All outputs live in
ignored maps/generated/, ui/storybook/generated/, and the ignored Storybook
preview.tsx wrapper. Start/build and UI typechecking generate their own inputs.
A clean merged checkout therefore assembles both branches' changes automatically.
Git provides history and diffs. PRs, issues and CI artifacts retain review/run evidence for the named revision. Capability associations do not create whole-file review dependencies. Keep durable scenario limits in the affected recipe or story.