Best possible solution:

Keep the PR open, update the stale fast-status test expectations, add real chat-command behavior proof, and then let maintainers decide whether to accept the new default command semantics.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Not applicable; this PR adds a new chat-command capability rather than reporting a bug. The current merge blocker is independently reproducible from CI annotations for checks-node-core-fast and the failed real-behavior-proof gate.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear; the implementation follows the existing parser/session architecture, but the user-facing command semantics still need maintainer acceptance and the branch is not merge-ready until proof and stale tests are fixed.

Full review comments:

• [P2] Update fast status expectations — src/auto-reply/reply/directive-handling.impl.ts:206
  The PR changes the /fast status options text to include default, but checks-node-core-fast still fails because two existing directive-behavior assertions expect Options: status, on, off.. Update those expectations, or keep the emitted copy compatible, so the fast shard is green before merge.
  Confidence: 0.97

Overall correctness: patch is incorrect
Overall confidence: 0.88

What I checked:

• Current main lacks clear/default command support: Current docs still describe /think as cleared by /think:off and /fast as on|off, and the current /fast command handler returns usage status|on|off for unrecognized modes. (src/auto-reply/reply/commands-session.ts:415, fecddcabd7a9)
• PR changes the intended command surface: The PR patch adds clearThinkLevel/clearFastMode, default aliases, registry choices, help/docs/changelog copy, and tests for clearing session overrides. (src/auto-reply/reply/directive-handling.parse.ts:26, ce282a7ea067)
• Real behavior proof is missing: The PR body lists docs, unit tests, changed check, and diff check, but no after-fix real OpenClaw chat-command output, terminal output, recording, screenshot, or redacted runtime log; the Real behavior proof check also failed with that reason. (ce282a7ea067)
• CI has a concrete stale expectation failure: checks-node-core-fast fails because existing directive-behavior tests still expect Options: status, on, off. while the PR now emits Options: status, on, off, default. at two assertions. (src/auto-reply/reply.directive.directive-behavior.shows-current-verbose-level-verbose-has-no.test.ts:91, ce282a7ea067)
• Security-sensitive surfaces not touched: The diff is limited to command/directive source, docs, changelog, and tests; it does not change workflows, dependencies, lockfiles, package scripts, permissions, secrets handling, or downloaded artifacts. (ce282a7ea067)
• Feature history points to command and thinking maintainers: GitHub commit history shows recent central thinking-profile work, browser-safe command registry work, fast-status target-entry work, and directive UX work in the same files. (src/auto-reply/reply/directive-handling.impl.ts, fecddcabd7a9)

Likely related people:

• steipete: Recent commits centralize provider thinking profiles and maintain command registry behavior across docs/tools/thinking.md, docs/tools/slash-commands.md, src/auto-reply/reply/directive-handling.impl.ts, src/auto-reply/thinking.shared.ts, and src/auto-reply/commands-registry.shared.ts. (role: feature-history owner and recent maintainer; confidence: high; commits: f1805ab54d63, 636478c622ec, 93d5cd10151f; files: src/auto-reply/reply/directive-handling.impl.ts, src/auto-reply/thinking.shared.ts, src/auto-reply/commands-registry.shared.ts)
• Takhoffman: Recent history includes target-session fast status handling and broader directive command UX work touching /fast, command status builders, directive handling, and the directive-behavior test that now fails. (role: adjacent command/session maintainer; confidence: high; commits: f6f81960f3d9, 7c09ba70efb0, 4360a59c6d3f; files: src/auto-reply/reply/commands-session.ts, src/auto-reply/reply/commands-session-usage.test.ts, src/auto-reply/command-status-builders.ts)

Remaining risk / open question:

• The branch currently fails checks-node-core-fast because two existing status-output expectations were not updated.
• The contributor has not supplied after-fix real behavior proof from a real OpenClaw setup.
• Local test execution was not run because this sweep kept the target checkout read-only; CI annotations provide the failing-test evidence.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against fecddcabd7a9.