test: verify post-#616 exact-review publication

[brokemac79]

End-to-end verification

This is a deliberately benign operational test issue created after #616 merged.

Please let the normal ClawSweeper issue intake/review/publish/router chain process it. The verification target is a durable full review comment plus the normal labels, without any manual Actions dispatch.

No product change is requested by this test issue.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: keeping this open for maintainer follow-up; there is still a little grit to resolve. Reviewed July 15, 2026, 9:58 PM ET / July 16, 2026, 01:58 UTC.

Summary
Keep open for the moment: the exact-review publisher successfully created the bot comment, but the captured live state still had no labels, so the issue’s full comment-plus-router verification target was not yet proven complete.

Reproducibility: not applicable. as a bug reproduction: this issue is a live operational probe, and its success criterion is observable publication plus label routing on the issue itself.

Root-cause cluster
Relationship: fixed_by_candidate
Canonical: #616
Summary: The merged pull request is the implementation under verification; this issue is a post-merge operational probe rather than a duplicate defect report.

Members:

• canonical: fix: run exact publishers on current main #616 - This merged PR introduced the current-main exact-publication behavior that the issue was created to exercise.
• adjacent_distinct: Re-review acknowledgement assumes a durable review comment already exists #581 - That issue concerns inaccurate re-review acknowledgement before a durable comment exists, not post-merge publisher and label-router completion.

Proposal only: this assessment does not dispatch repair, suppress jobs, mutate sibling items, close, or merge anything.

Ways to help us reproduce this

• Add a screenshot or short recording showing the behavior.
• Add expected vs actual behavior.
• Include redacted logs or terminal output.

Next step
No fix PR should be queued because the issue requests observation only and the publication chain is still completing; inspect the router and durable state if labels remain absent.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Let the current exact-review chain finish, confirm the durable marker-backed comment, expected labels, successful publisher/router run, and durable state record, then close this test; if routing failed, file a focused incident with the exact run and state-write evidence.

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

Not applicable as a bug reproduction: this issue is a live operational probe, and its success criterion is observable publication plus label routing on the issue itself.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. A benign exact-item issue processed without manual dispatch is the narrowest end-to-end verification, but it should remain open until both the durable comment and routed labels are observed.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Remaining risk / open question:

• The durable review comment is visible, but the supplied live snapshot does not yet prove that the deferred router applied the expected labels or that the durable state publication completed.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 126647d9ddbc.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a benign, low-risk operational verification issue with no requested product or source change.
• add issue-rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool: Current issue advisory state selects this label.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a benign, low-risk operational verification issue with no requested product or source change.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• publication_stage_reached: The issue timeline records a clawsweeper[bot] comment at 2026-07-16T01:55:39Z, showing that the exact review reached target-comment publication. (126647d9ddbc)
• router_result_not_yet_proven: The captured GitHub context still reports an empty label set, while the issue explicitly requires the normal labels in addition to the durable review comment.
• current_main_contains_the_repair: The target checkout’s current main SHA is the merge commit for fix: run exact publishers on current main #616, whose stated changes run queued exact publishers from current main, safely requeue legacy tuple-less artifacts, and remove the redundant action-ledger publication. (.github/workflows/sweep.yml:1, 126647d9ddbc)
• main_only_provenance: The repair merged on July 16, 2026 after the listed latest release v0.3.0, so the relevant behavior is current-main-only in the supplied repository state. (126647d9ddbc)
• operational_test_scope: The issue explicitly requests no product change; it exists only to observe the normal automation chain after the merged repair.

Likely related people:

• brokemac79: Authored the merged current-main repair being verified here, including the exact-publisher workflow and focused workflow coverage. (role: exact-publication repair contributor; confidence: high; commits: 126647d9ddbc; files: .github/workflows/sweep.yml, test/sweep-workflow.test.ts)
• steipete: Recent merged work on confirmed apply-candidate scheduling and stale close-proof handling makes this person relevant if publication succeeds but downstream routing or apply sequencing remains incomplete. (role: adjacent workflow scheduling contributor; confidence: medium; files: src/clawsweeper.ts, src/repair/apply-result.ts)

How this review workflow works

• 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.