• ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
• Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
• A fresh review can be triggered by maintainer comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on their own open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
• Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
• Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
• Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
• Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.

• 🦀 challenger crab: rare, exceptional readiness with strong proof, clean implementation, and convincing validation.
• 🦞 diamond lobster: very strong readiness with only minor maintainer review expected.
• 🐚 platinum hermit: good normal PR, likely mergeable with ordinary maintainer review.
• 🦐 gold shrimp: useful signal, but proof or patch confidence is still limited.
• 🦪 silver shellfish: thin signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work.
• 🧂 unranked krab: not merge-ready because proof is missing/unusable or there are serious correctness or safety concerns.
• 🌊 off-meta tidepool: rating does not apply to this item.

Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

Best possible solution:

Land the narrow shared parser fix with its regression coverage, then let the linked bug close through the PR’s closing reference.

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

Yes. Current main’s shared parser uses Number.parseInt, and the linked before log shows 1.5 becoming 1000 ms and 10abc becoming 10000 ms.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. Fixing the shared update timeout parser is the narrow maintainable path because update, status, finalize, and wizard all flow through this helper.

What I checked:

• Current main accepts numeric prefixes: Current main still computes timeout milliseconds with Number.parseInt(timeout, 10) * 1000, so inputs like 1.5 and 10abc are accepted as positive numeric prefixes before validation. (src/cli/update-cli/shared.ts:57, 645ef817b66e)
• CLI/docs contract is seconds: The update CLI declares --timeout <seconds> and the user docs describe it as a per-step timeout in seconds, supporting full integer-second validation at the shared parser. (src/cli/update-cli.ts:53, 645ef817b66e)
• PR parser fix: The PR head returns undefined only for an actually omitted timeout, trims supplied values, requires a full decimal digit string, checks safe positive integer seconds, and returns milliseconds. (src/cli/update-cli/shared.ts:56, f5e6e06f8ee2)
• PR regression coverage: The PR adds parser tests rejecting 1.5, 10abc, 0, -1, and whitespace-only input while accepting trimmed and leading-zero positive integer strings plus omitted timeout. (src/cli/update-cli/shared.command-runner.test.ts:50, f5e6e06f8ee2)
• Linked real behavior proof: The PR body links WSL before/after artifacts that import the real parser: current main accepts 1.5 and 10abc, while the PR branch rejects those malformed values and accepts valid integer strings. (fc079319da71)
• CI state at PR head: The check-runs query for the latest head showed the main node/check/security lanes and the Real behavior proof job successful, with one Critical Quality lane still in progress at review time. (f5e6e06f8ee2)

Likely related people:

• Rubén Cuevas: The current parser helper lines are blamed to squash commit 893f580, which lists Rubén Cuevas as a co-author; that commit carried the Number.parseInt timeout parser now being fixed. (role: introduced behavior; confidence: medium; commits: 893f5800727e; files: src/cli/update-cli/shared.ts)
• shakkernerd: GitHub path history shows 92f8c1e adding update finalization command work in shared.ts, adjacent to the shared timeout helper used by update/finalize/status/wizard. (role: recent update CLI contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 92f8c1edac78; files: src/cli/update-cli/shared.ts)
• steipete: Recent path history shows multiple updates to the same update CLI shared/helper surface, including CLI helper export cleanup and update completion refresh work. (role: recent adjacent owner; confidence: medium; commits: 960fabdaef72, f427ddc220b5, 694ca50e9775; files: src/cli/update-cli/shared.ts, src/cli/update-cli.ts)
• giodl73-repo: Separate from this PR, current-main history shows giodl73-repo recently touched the update command area in commit 9a5f2f6. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: low; commits: 9a5f2f61e76f; files: src/cli/update-cli/update-command.ts)

Remaining risk / open question:

• The latest head still had one Critical Quality check in progress in the read-only check-runs query, so merge should wait for required checks to finish.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against 645ef817b66e.