Refresh app and developer documentation

[shanselman]

Summary

• refresh installer/release links to point at openclaw/openclaw-windows-node
• update README/DEVELOPMENT/build script project inventory for current Connection, Chat, WinNode CLI, and SetupEngine surfaces
• bring connection/MCP docs up to date for gateway records, startup wiring, credential precedence, MCP-only mode, Canvas/system.run gating, and SSH tunnel ownership
• update Windows node testing docs for stt.*, system.run.prepare, and MCP-only app.* commands
• refresh TEST_COVERAGE inventory and clarify that AGENTS.md lists the required local closeout subset while CI runs broader suites

Validation

• PYTHONUTF8=1 PYTHONIOENCODING=utf-8 python .agents\skills\autoreview\scripts\autoreview --mode local — clean, no accepted/actionable findings
• .\build.ps1
• dotnet test .\tests\OpenClaw.Shared.Tests\OpenClaw.Shared.Tests.csproj --no-restore — 2689 passed, 31 skipped
• dotnet test .\tests\OpenClaw.Tray.Tests\OpenClaw.Tray.Tests.csproj --no-restore — 1452 passed

Real behavior proof

• Documentation audit compared current docs against live source for gateway registry/credential behavior, MCP/node capability registration, current test inventory, setup scripts, release workflow, and build/run scripts.
• Drift scan found no remaining stale openclaw/openclaw/releases, OpenClawTray.OnboardingV2.Tests, unsupported RID, or stale MCP-mode table references in the audited docs.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs changes before merge. Reviewed July 1, 2026, 2:47 PM ET / 18:47 UTC.

Summary
This PR refreshes root and developer documentation for Windows release links, project inventory, connection/MCP behavior, Windows node commands, and test coverage counts.

Reproducibility: yes. for the PR finding: the PR adds latest/download links to OpenClawCompanion-SHA256SUMS.txt, while the latest release asset list and current release workflow do not include that file.

Review metrics: 2 noteworthy metrics.

• PR surface: 9 files changed, +93/-47. The change is broad enough across user, developer, and agent-facing docs that link accuracy matters before merge.
• Missing release asset: 1 documented asset absent. The checksum filename added by the PR is not present in the latest release asset list or release upload workflow.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🦐 gold shrimp
Proof: 🐚 platinum hermit
Patch quality: 🦐 gold shrimp
Result: needs maintainer review before merge.

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality, so missing proof can cap an otherwise strong patch.

Rank-up moves:

• [P2] Fix the checksum references or add release proof that the checksum asset is now published.

Risk before merge

• [P1] If merged as-is, README.md and docs/SETUP.md will direct users to a checksum file that the latest OpenClaw Windows release does not provide.

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Land the docs refresh after either removing/replacing the missing checksum references or adding a release workflow path that actually publishes that asset.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

• [P2] A narrow automated repair can remove or correct the missing checksum links without changing the rest of the documentation refresh.

Security
Needs attention: The diff is documentation-only, but the new checksum link is a concrete installer-verification concern because the referenced release asset is not published.

Review findings

• [P2] Remove the missing checksum asset link — README.md:41

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land the docs refresh after either removing/replacing the missing checksum references or adding a release workflow path that actually publishes that asset.

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

Yes for the PR finding: the PR adds latest/download links to OpenClawCompanion-SHA256SUMS.txt, while the latest release asset list and current release workflow do not include that file.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

No; retargeting the release links is mostly right, but the checksum references need to match a published asset before the docs are merge-ready.

Full review comments:

• [P2] Remove the missing checksum asset link — README.md:41
  The latest openclaw/openclaw-windows-node release and the current release workflow publish the installer EXEs and portable ZIPs, but not OpenClawCompanion-SHA256SUMS.txt. After this PR, the README checksum bullet and mirrored docs/SETUP.md row will point users at a missing release asset, so the docs should remove/replace that link or the release workflow should publish it.
  Confidence: 0.93

Overall correctness: patch is incorrect
Overall confidence: 0.87

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 14022dc71222.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add P2: This is a bounded documentation PR with a user-facing installer verification link regression.
• add proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The PR body includes validation commands with pass counts and a current-head documentation audit statement, which is enough proof for the docs/comment behavior even though review found one bad asset reference.
• add rating: 🦐 gold shrimp: Overall readiness is 🦐 gold shrimp; proof is 🐚 platinum hermit and patch quality is 🦐 gold shrimp.
• add status: ⏳ waiting on author: ClawSweeper has contributor-facing work open and is waiting for author action. Sufficient (terminal): The PR body includes validation commands with pass counts and a current-head documentation audit statement, which is enough proof for the docs/comment behavior even though review found one bad asset reference.

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a bounded documentation PR with a user-facing installer verification link regression.
• rating: 🦐 gold shrimp: Overall readiness is 🦐 gold shrimp; proof is 🐚 platinum hermit and patch quality is 🦐 gold shrimp.
• status: ⏳ waiting on author: ClawSweeper has contributor-facing work open and is waiting for author action. Sufficient (terminal): The PR body includes validation commands with pass counts and a current-head documentation audit statement, which is enough proof for the docs/comment behavior even though review found one bad asset reference.
• proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The PR body includes validation commands with pass counts and a current-head documentation audit statement, which is enough proof for the docs/comment behavior even though review found one bad asset reference.

Evidence reviewed

Security concerns:

• [low] Broken checksum verification link — README.md:41
  The PR documents a checksum file under the Windows release, but the latest release and upload workflow do not provide that asset, leaving users without the documented verification file.
  Confidence: 0.9

Acceptance criteria:

• [P1] ./build.ps1.
• [P1] dotnet test ./tests/OpenClaw.Shared.Tests/OpenClaw.Shared.Tests.csproj --no-restore.
• [P1] dotnet test ./tests/OpenClaw.Tray.Tests/OpenClaw.Tray.Tests.csproj --no-restore.
• [P1] gh release view v0.6.12 --repo openclaw/openclaw-windows-node --json assets.

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: AGENTS.md was read fully; its validation/proof guidance is relevant because the PR changes agent-facing validation docs and MCP/Windows node documentation. (AGENTS.md:1, 14022dc71222)
• PR diff scope: The PR changes 9 docs/comment files with 93 additions and 47 deletions, including release download links in README.md and docs/SETUP.md. (cfb656e6ee03)
• Latest release asset check: Release v0.6.12 publishes the x64/ARM64 installer EXEs and portable ZIPs, but no OpenClawCompanion-SHA256SUMS.txt asset. (4166e0fd63f8)
• Release workflow upload list: The action-gh-release files list uploads only the two installer EXEs and two portable ZIPs, so current main does not create or publish the checksum text file the PR links to. (.github/workflows/ci.yml:746, 4166e0fd63f8)
• Build/project inventory support: Current build.ps1 accepts WinNodeCli and SetupEngine project targets, and the matching source/test projects exist in the repository. (build.ps1:31, 14022dc71222)
• Windows node/MCP docs support: Current source and tests contain system.run.prepare, stt., and MCP-only app. command surfaces matching the PR's documentation direction. (src/OpenClaw.Shared/Mcp/McpToolBridge.cs:189, 14022dc71222)

Likely related people:

• shanselman: git blame points both the existing README release-link block and the release workflow upload list to commit 4166e0f, and shortlog shows the same person as the dominant recent contributor across these docs/release files. (role: recent release/docs contributor; confidence: high; commits: 4166e0fd63f8; files: README.md, docs/SETUP.md, .github/workflows/ci.yml)

What the crustacean ranks mean

• 🦀 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.

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.