Best possible solution:

Retain the narrow human-versus-trusted-bot distinction, land it only after the completed production flow proves a human replay can resume an exact reviewed head without allowing label sweeps to manufacture approval.

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

Yes, source-reproducible with medium confidence: the prior classification visibly returns skipped when automerge is already enabled, while the existing approval predicate recognizes executed or waiting maintainer automerge entries. A completed production-flow run is still needed to confirm the full external path.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, conditionally: recording a human replay as a terminal executed no-op is the narrowest way to preserve explicit resume intent while leaving trusted-bot sweeps skipped; the integrated production-flow check should verify the unchanged safety gates before merge.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 06552f27f8ba.

Label changes:

• add P2: This is a bounded correctness change in merge automation that can affect contributor landing flows but is not an emergency outage.
• add merge-risk: 🚨 automation: The patch changes the command-status ledger that controls whether automerge review resumes landing.
• 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: This is a member-authored internal automation PR, so the external-contributor real-behavior-proof gate does not apply; completed production-flow check evidence should still be reviewed before merge.

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a bounded correctness change in merge automation that can affect contributor landing flows but is not an emergency outage.
• merge-risk: 🚨 automation: The patch changes the command-status ledger that controls whether automerge review resumes landing.
• 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: This is a member-authored internal automation PR, so the external-contributor real-behavior-proof gate does not apply; completed production-flow check evidence should still be reviewed before merge.

What I checked:

• Narrow authorization split: The new helper returns an executed resume-intent outcome only when trustedBot is false, while trusted-bot replays retain the existing skipped outcome; the command router uses that helper only for commands blocked because the repair-loop mode is already enabled. (src/repair/comment-router-core.ts:704, b0724293a282)
• Acknowledgement follows new terminal outcome: The router expands terminal maintainer-command acknowledgement from only skipped to both executed and skipped statuses, so a human no-op resume command receives the same terminal handling without entering the ready-command execution path. (src/repair/comment-router.ts:2764, b0724293a282)
• Focused regression coverage: The added test distinguishes human and trusted-bot outcomes and verifies that the recorded human automerge entry satisfies the existing needs-human approval predicate. (src/repair/comment-router-core.test.ts:44, b0724293a282)
• Adjacent current-main provenance: The related direct-BEHIND automerge change was merged as current main commit 06552f27f8ba184c1008a9856247c99ffd5d7216 from fix(automerge): merge ready behind heads directly #679; this PR is a follow-up for the resume path that the earlier change exposed. (src/repair/comment-router.ts:1071, 06552f27f8ba)
• Automation validation remains pending: The provided PR check state shows the production automerge flow and pnpm check runs still in progress, so the claimed real production-flow result is not yet independently confirmed by completed check evidence. (b0724293a282)

Likely related people:

• hxy91819: Authored the adjacent direct-BEHIND automerge implementation already merged to current main and this follow-up resume-intent path. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 06552f27f8ba, b0724293a282; files: src/repair/comment-router.ts, src/repair/comment-router-core.ts, src/repair/comment-router-core.test.ts)

• 🦀 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.