Best possible solution:

Land the focused tab-aware raw-output implementation after normal maintainer review, keeping default raw output backward-compatible and preserving the canonical all-tabs response.

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

Not applicable as a PR feature review; the linked issue has concrete CLI reproduction steps, and this PR adds tests plus a live Google Docs smoke summary for the new behavior.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, the PR uses the existing Docs tab resolution helpers and keeps the unflagged raw request unchanged while adding explicit selected-tab and canonical all-tabs modes.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against ebc8218b609a.

Label changes:

• add P2: This is a focused user-facing docs raw improvement with limited blast radius.
• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🐚 platinum hermit 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 collaborator-authored PR, so the external-contributor real behavior proof gate does not apply; the PR body nevertheless includes a live Google Docs smoke summary.

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a focused user-facing docs raw improvement with limited blast radius.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🐚 platinum hermit 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 collaborator-authored PR, so the external-contributor real behavior proof gate does not apply; the PR body nevertheless includes a live Google Docs smoke summary.

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: AGENTS.md was read fully; its PR review-mode guidance, parseable-output convention, and project testing expectations were applied without switching branches or editing files. (AGENTS.md:1, ebc8218b609a)
• Current main lacks the new raw tab flags: On current main, DocsRawCmd only has DocID and Pretty, and Run calls Documents.Get(id).Context(ctx).Do() without IncludeTabsContent; the PR is still needed for the requested selected/all-tab raw modes. (internal/cmd/docs.go:70, ebc8218b609a)
• PR implementation is focused: The PR head adds Tab and AllTabs fields, rejects using them together, requests includeTabsContent=true only for those modes, and projects selected tab content into the legacy top-level Document fields. (internal/cmd/docs.go:70, 468e9f8c9c85)
• Existing tab helpers reused: Current main already has flattenTabs for nested tab traversal and findTab for exact tab ID plus case-folded title lookup, matching the related issue's title-or-ID expectation. (internal/cmd/docs_tabs.go:10, ebc8218b609a)
• PR test coverage: The PR adds raw-output tests for default compatibility, selected nested tab by ID/title, missing tab errors, all-tabs canonical output, conflict validation, and legacy-field projection. (internal/cmd/docs_raw_test.go:46, 468e9f8c9c85)
• API struct cross-check: The Google Docs Go client's Document legacy fields correspond to the DocumentTab fields copied by projectRawDocumentTab, and Tabs remains the canonical all-tabs field. (internal/cmd/docs.go:137, 468e9f8c9c85)

Likely related people:

• steipete: Current DocsRawCmd, raw-output docs, and tab helpers on main are attributed to recent release and Docs-command work. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 71a8504d0add, 7b288cc92278; files: internal/cmd/docs.go, internal/cmd/docs_raw_test.go, internal/cmd/docs_tabs.go)
• sebsnyk: Recent merged Docs tab work and the linked feature request are connected to the same multi-tab raw-output problem space. (role: adjacent feature contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 58b866e9ac55; files: internal/cmd/docs_edit.go, internal/cmd/docs_tab_edit_test.go)
• Ben Lewis: Introduced the per-tab Docs export surface that the related issue cites as precedent for title-or-ID tab selection. (role: adjacent feature contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 26e01cfa972a; files: internal/cmd/docs_tab_export.go, internal/cmd/docs.go)

• 🦀 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.