Openclaw Repair Sweep

OpenClaw Repair Sweep

Use for a multi-item repair campaign. Root AGENTS.md owns repair and safety policy; $openclaw-pr-maintainer owns item review, GitHub writes, and landing. The lead remains hands-on and delegates independent work where useful.

Scope and authority

• Explicit refs imply a bounded ref campaign. Otherwise discovery defaults to five qualified items (maximum twenty per batch); a whole-queue request means continuing through that queue. Do not pad low-confidence findings.
• Honor requested workers and focus. Ref/discovery campaigns normally use up to eight item owners; a queue campaign can assign up to sixty-four, but actual active proof workers must fit host/remote capacity. Start small and scale on observed resource health; assigned is not the same as running.
• An explicit autonomous fix-and-land/sweep invocation covers scoped investigation, repairs, commits, pushes, PRs, verified landings and proven closures. Review, triage, or list wording stays read-only; fix-only stops before publication. Never infer release, schema/config/protocol, credential, security, or product approval from campaign authority.

Use $gitcrawl for available archive discovery, $openclaw-testing for proof, $autoreview for independent code review, and $crabbox when the proof requires remote environment or untrusted-source isolation. Author-history research is conditional on a concrete question, not a campaign prerequisite.

Coordinate ownership

Assign each item or shared root-cause cluster one owner, a checkout, frozen source SHA, authorized actions, and a useful stopping condition. Duplicate symptoms share an owner; repeated defect classes should be repaired in the canonical owner rather than by parallel near-identical patches.

Use isolated issue/PR worktrees and preserve unrelated files. Serialize shared fetch/ref/branch/worktree operations, PR preparation, and merges in short slots; never hold the slot across coding, tests, or a remote wait. Each remote lease has one owner and one active command. Pause only campaign-owned work under resource pressure, and preserve patches, claims, proof, and checkpoints before replacement. The lead may take over stalled work safely; it is not an orchestration-only role.

Read root and scoped guides before acting. Each verdict-bearing worker inspects its relevant dependency contracts directly, including the root's personal Codex source requirement. The lead verifies consequential results, not just summaries. Use independent challenge for nontrivial repairs and closure evidence; one independent autoreview is enough for the code-review requirement.

Investigate and repair

Search existing work before creating another fix: current body/comments, related archive results, live state when it matters, and current source/history. Use bare PATH gh with narrow JSON fields; reuse shared evidence and avoid unnecessary pagination or repeated item fetches.

Prefer, in order:

1. Prove the original behavior is already fixed on current main and close under the authorized scope with the canonical fix and evidence.
2. Finish and verify an existing useful editable PR, preserving human credit.
3. If that PR cannot safely be updated, create a credited replacement before closing it. Do not squash a contributor PR after replacing its ancestry.
4. Implement a new high-confidence repair when no suitable fix exists.
5. Record a concrete blocker or product/owner decision. A useful independent simplification may land under its own scope, but it does not close the bug.

A candidate needs a demonstrated current defect, an understood owner and bounded impact, relevant dependency proof, and feasible validation. Repairs requiring new dependencies/configuration, public-contract changes, security, persistence design, or product judgment require their root approvals before implementation or landing as applicable. Preserve useful investigation; do not work around the gate or count review-required work as an accepted fix.

Repair the invariant at its owner, cover relevant siblings, and remove connected obsolete paths when justified. Do not add speculative fallback layers or hardcode the reported example. Prefer simplicity without a LOC quota. Keep release-note context and credit in the PR; CHANGELOG.md remains release-owned. Do not force a second refactor PR after each completed item.