@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ Skills own workflows; root owns hard policy and routing.
|
28 | 28 | - Plugin APIs, provider routing, auth/session state, persisted preferences, config loading, config/default additions, migrations, setup, startup checks, and fallback behavior are compatibility/upgrade-sensitive. Treat config breaks, new config/default surfaces, removed fallbacks, fail-closed changes, stricter validation, or new operator action as merge risk even with green CI when they can affect existing users, upgrades, provider/plugin behavior, or maintainer operations. |
29 | 29 | - For PRs that add, remove, or change config/default surfaces with possible compatibility, upgrade, provider/plugin, operator, setup, startup, or fallback impact, ClawSweeper review should emit a `reviewMetrics` entry when practical. The metric should name the count and direction of the changes, such as added, changed, or removed config/default surfaces, and explain why the metric matters before merge. When the metric indicates concrete merge risk, also surface the concern in `risks`, use `mergeRiskLabels` when the risk matches the label rubric, make `bestSolution` name the desired pre-merge state, and ensure `labelJustifications` explain the specific reason rather than restating the label. |
30 | 30 | - Review whole decision surfaces, not only the touched runtime, provider, channel, harness, plugin seam, or context path. Check sibling Codex/Pi-style runtimes, provider/model routing, channel delivery, gateway/protocol, plugin SDK, and context-management paths when relevant. |
| 31 | +- Every PR review must explicitly ask whether the PR is the best fix, not merely a plausible fix. Verdicts need a best-fix judgment backed by enough code reading to compare owner boundaries, callers, siblings, tests, docs, current `main`, shipped behavior when relevant, and dependency/Codex contracts when involved. |
31 | 32 | - One-sided fixes need sibling-surface proof, an explanation for why siblings are unaffected, or explicit follow-up work. |
32 | 33 | - Changelog findings: see Docs / Changelog. |
33 | 34 | - Public ClawSweeper comments prefer `https://docs.openclaw.ai/...` when a public docs page exists; structured evidence still cites repo files, lines, SHAs. |
|
