Best possible solution:

Land the narrow docs clarification once normal CI/review is satisfied, preserving parity with the existing webhook command filter and pinned GitHub App token workflow.

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

Not applicable; this is a docs PR rather than a bug report. The review checked the sample against current command-router source and tests.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes; documenting the existing webhook pre-filter in the copy-paste target dispatcher is the narrowest maintainable path because the runtime command grammar already exists and is tested.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 1566ad6a0a5b.

Label changes:

• add P3: This is low-risk documentation and operator setup clarification for the dispatcher workflow.
• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• add status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: Real behavior proof is not required because this PR only changes files under docs/.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is low-risk documentation and operator setup clarification for the dispatcher workflow.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: Real behavior proof is not required because this PR only changes files under docs/.

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: AGENTS.md was read in full and its maintainer-authored/non-closeable guidance applies to this PR review. (AGENTS.md, 1566ad6a0a5b)
• PR diff surface: The branch changes only docs/target-dispatcher.md, adding setup prerequisites, a Pre-filter ClawSweeper comment step, and verification guidance. (docs/target-dispatcher.md:86, e8333740739a)
• Command filter parity: Current main already uses the same ClawSweeper mention/slash-command pattern in the webhook classifier that the docs PR moves into the target dispatcher example. (src/repair/comment-webhook.ts:16, 1566ad6a0a5b)
• Router grammar coverage: Existing tests cover @openclaw-clawsweeper[bot], re-review variants, freeform mention commands, and unrelated inline comments that should not route. (test/repair/comment-router-core.test.ts:1036, 1566ad6a0a5b)
• Related history: GitHub PR search found this PR as a narrow follow-up to the merged rate-limit dispatcher setup work in fix(ci): reduce ClawSweeper GitHub API pressure #343, not a duplicate replacement. (docs/target-dispatcher.md:234, 1566ad6a0a5b)
• Feature history: History shows recent dispatcher docs and exact-queue work concentrated in the merged rate-limit and durable-queue changes. (docs/target-dispatcher.md, 1566ad6a0a5b)

Likely related people:

• vincentkoc: Authored the merged rate-limit dispatcher docs follow-up at fix(ci): reduce ClawSweeper GitHub API pressure #343 and recent exact-queue/comment-webhook work used as the source of truth for this PR. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 1566ad6a0a5b, ac8f2c5e61c2; files: docs/target-dispatcher.md, src/repair/comment-webhook.ts)
• Peter Steinberger: Established much of the current target dispatcher documentation in the release commit and made nearby exact-queue docs updates. (role: original and recent docs contributor; confidence: medium; commits: dc824915bb6c, 30163dfd667b; files: docs/target-dispatcher.md)

• 🦀 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.

• 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.