• 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 eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an 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:

Proceed through maintainer review and final CI/Testbox gating, then land the lint cleanup if the exact merge head remains green.

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

Not applicable; this is a cleanup PR rather than a bug report with a failing user path. The relevant checks are diff review, lint proof, and merge-head CI/Testbox validation.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes; removing the central allow list while preserving compatibility aliases for selected public/deprecated helper exports is the maintainable direction. The broad surface makes final automated validation important before landing.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk lint hygiene cleanup with no intended user-facing behavior change.

What I checked:

• Protected label: The provided live GitHub context lists the protected maintainer label, so this workflow should not close the PR automatically.
• Merge-head diff scope: The synthetic merge commit applies the PR to current main and changes 739 files with 3220 insertions and 3210 deletions, centered on the lint rule and mechanical identifier cleanup. (f6cb93ecc1e8)
• Lint rule change: The merge result sets eslint/no-underscore-dangle to a plain error rule with no allow list. (.oxlintrc.json:11, f6cb93ecc1e8)
• Compatibility alias sample: Sampled renamed test helpers keep old __testing export aliases where the PR preserves compatibility. (extensions/acpx/src/runtime.ts:1261, f6cb93ecc1e8)
• Bundled version define handling: The PR keeps the required __OPENCLAW_VERSION__ direct identifier behind a narrow lint suppression and adds a source regression check for that shape. (src/version.ts:4, f6cb93ecc1e8)
• Diff hygiene: The merge-result diff has no git diff --check whitespace errors. (f6cb93ecc1e8)

Likely related people:

• Ayaan Zaidi: Current-main blame and log history in this checkout point to commit 53d14d0 as the recent owner of the central lint/config/version/UI surfaces sampled for this PR. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 53d14d0561f6; files: .oxlintrc.json, src/version.ts, ui/vite.config.ts)

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against 6a5a1353c7f0.