• 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:

Keep the Codex conversation dynamic-tool bridge, but preserve the existing plugin tool allowlist contract and require redacted after-fix proof from a real AgentOS/Codex setup before merge.

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

Yes, source inspection gives a high-confidence reproduction path: current main handles app-server conversation item/tool/call requests by returning a fixed “does not expose dynamic OpenClaw tools yet” failure. I did not run a live macOS Codex/AgentOS setup in this read-only review.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

No, not as written: the bridge implementation is plausible, but the shared plugin discovery change breaks the existing alsoAllow compatibility contract. The safer solution is to preserve default plugin tools globally and apply any Codex-specific narrowing locally.

Label changes:

• add P1: The PR targets a broken Codex/plugin dynamic-tool workflow and also contains a merge-blocking compatibility regression in shared plugin tool discovery.
• add merge-risk: 🚨 compatibility: The diff can remove default plugin tools from existing tools.alsoAllow setups by changing shared allowlist semantics.
• add merge-risk: 🚨 session-state: The dynamic-tool refresh path can replace managed Codex conversation threads, which may affect persisted thread context during upgrade.
• add rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Current PR rating is 🧂 unranked krab because proof is 🧂 unranked krab, patch quality is 🧂 unranked krab, and The PR has a useful target, but missing real behavior proof plus a blocking compatibility regression make it not quality-ready yet.
• add status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs stronger real behavior proof before merge: The PR body has test output and a narrative macOS smoke note, but needs a redacted terminal/log/screenshot/video artifact showing the AgentOS tool visible and callable after the patch; updating the PR body should trigger re-review, or a maintainer can comment @clawsweeper re-review. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.

Label justifications:

• P1: The PR targets a broken Codex/plugin dynamic-tool workflow and also contains a merge-blocking compatibility regression in shared plugin tool discovery.
• merge-risk: 🚨 compatibility: The diff can remove default plugin tools from existing tools.alsoAllow setups by changing shared allowlist semantics.
• merge-risk: 🚨 session-state: The dynamic-tool refresh path can replace managed Codex conversation threads, which may affect persisted thread context during upgrade.
• rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Current PR rating is 🧂 unranked krab because proof is 🧂 unranked krab, patch quality is 🧂 unranked krab, and The PR has a useful target, but missing real behavior proof plus a blocking compatibility regression make it not quality-ready yet.
• status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs stronger real behavior proof before merge: The PR body has test output and a narrative macOS smoke note, but needs a redacted terminal/log/screenshot/video artifact showing the AgentOS tool visible and callable after the patch; updating the PR body should trigger re-review, or a maintainer can comment @clawsweeper re-review. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.

Full review comments:

• [P1] Preserve default plugin tools for alsoAllow — src/plugins/tools.ts:374-375
  This early return changes alsoAllow-only policies from “default plugin tools plus named optional tools” to “only plugins matching explicit entries”. Current main has coverage expecting default non-optional plugin tools to remain available when the default-plugin sentinel is present, so existing configs with tools.alsoAllow can silently lose unrelated default plugin tools after upgrade. Keep the sentinel behavior here and narrow the Codex dynamic-tool surface through a Codex-local allowlist if needed.
  Confidence: 0.89

Overall correctness: patch is incorrect
Overall confidence: 0.86

What I checked:

• Current main has the reported Codex conversation gap: The current app-server conversation binding returns a fixed failure for item/tool/call, so the central bug is source-reproducible on main. (extensions/codex/src/conversation-binding.ts:412, 229490a48924)
• Current main preserves default plugin tools for alsoAllow: listManifestToolNamesForAllowlist treats the default-plugin sentinel as preserving non-optional plugin tools and returns those defaults plus explicit matches. (src/plugins/tools.ts:123, 229490a48924)
• Regression test on main covers the compatibility contract: The existing test expects a non-optional default plugin tool to remain available when alsoAllow opts into an optional tool. (src/plugins/tools.optional.test.ts:994, 229490a48924)
• PR diff drops unrelated default plugin tools: The PR adds an early return when the allowlist has multiple entries and no tool-name match, which suppresses default non-optional plugin tools for alsoAllow-only configurations. (src/plugins/tools.ts:374, 1e6cbfe0f0e1)
• History provenance for the affected compatibility code: Blame ties the current plugin allowlist helper and conversation-binding gap in this checkout to commit 98af517. (src/plugins/tools.ts:351, 98af51748d19)
• Real behavior proof is not inspectable: The PR body includes focused test results and a narrative macOS smoke note, but no terminal output, logs, screenshot, recording, or linked artifact showing agent_os_get_context visible and callable after the patch. (1e6cbfe0f0e1)

Likely related people:

• BSG2000: Current-main blame attributes the plugin allowlist helper and conversation-binding code in this shallow history to commit 98af517. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 98af51748d19; files: src/plugins/tools.ts, extensions/codex/src/conversation-binding.ts, src/plugins/manifest-registry.ts)
• joshavant: Recent local history shows adjacent Codex app-server work on sandbox execution and missing completion handling, which are close to the conversation binding/runtime surface. (role: recent Codex app-server contributor; confidence: medium; commits: ba06376c7955, 7cda26aa6c72; files: extensions/codex/src/app-server/run-attempt.ts, extensions/codex/src/conversation-binding.ts)
• vincentkoc: Recent history includes adjacent Codex app-server dynamic tool configuration work, relevant to the timeout and tool-surface behavior this PR changes. (role: recent Codex dynamic-tool contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 60d200f79719; files: extensions/codex/src/app-server/run-attempt.ts)

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against 229490a48924.

• The egg game starts only after the PR passes the real-behavior proof check.
• Before that, no creature or rarity is rolled. The treat waits for real proof.
• This is still just collectible flavor: proof affects review readiness, not creature quality.