Files
DottaandPaperclip 2e52dfa864 fix(slack): retain DM thread tasks after completion (#19486)
## 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 at eb5c24b61c.

**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.
Commit 23ff4f04f passed 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
correction 367b6f9b3, including all three test-tree shards. The [full CI
pipeline](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42250458200)
passed for exact head 367b6f9b3f. 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 head
367b6f9b3f at [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. Commit 23ff4f04f fixes this finding.
Greptile and Paperclip Review both rate head
23ff4f04f6 at 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 on 23ff4f04f, 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]>
2026-11-07 08:35:29 -06:00
..

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: baseline or operation-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 none only 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.