Best possible solution:

Keep the PR open for normal maintainer review and merge once repository checks are acceptable.

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

Not applicable as a bug reproduction; this PR implements a new command surface. Source inspection confirms current main lacks the top-level Docs named-range commands, while the branch adds the requested implementation and tests.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. The PR uses existing Docs tab-loading, --at resolution, dry-run, output, and safety-profile patterns instead of creating a parallel command framework.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against e51f6be9dc38.

Label changes:

• add P2: This is a normal priority user-facing Docs capability addition in an existing supported product area.
• 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: The external-contributor proof gate does not apply to this collaborator-authored PR; the body nevertheless reports make ci and live disposable Google Docs smoke coverage.

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a normal priority user-facing Docs capability addition in an existing supported product area.
• 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: The external-contributor proof gate does not apply to this collaborator-authored PR; the body nevertheless reports make ci and live disposable Google Docs smoke coverage.

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: AGENTS.md was read in full; its PR-review guidance to inspect with gh pr view / gh pr diff without switching branches and its stdout/stderr output contract were applied where relevant. (AGENTS.md:1, e51f6be9dc38)
• Current main lacks the command surface: Current main has Docs raw named-range projection and Docs sed bookmark internals, but no top-level docs named-range command registration before this branch. (internal/cmd/docs.go:54, e51f6be9dc38)
• Branch command registration: The PR adds DocsNamedRangesCmd under docs with named-range, named-ranges, namedranges, and nr command names. (internal/cmd/docs.go:57, edeee6874802)
• Branch implementation: The new implementation wires list/create/delete/replace to Google Docs named-range API requests, uses existing tab and --at helpers, preserves JSON/plain TSV output, and uses revision write controls for mutations. (internal/cmd/docs_named_ranges.go:17, edeee6874802)
• Branch coverage: The added tests cover tab-aware JSON/plain listing, UTF-16 create-by-text, duplicate-name rejection, delete and replace by ID, empty replacement text force-send, TSV escaping, and ambiguous-name rejection. (internal/cmd/docs_named_ranges_test.go:63, edeee6874802)
• Safety profiles updated: The branch adds readonly and agent-safe profile entries that allow listing named ranges while denying create/delete/replace mutations in restrictive baked profiles. (safety-profiles/readonly.yaml:161, edeee6874802)

Likely related people:

• steipete: Git history and blame show Peter Steinberger authored the current Docs command registration area, tab-aware raw work, current content enumerators, and foundational Docs helper files this PR builds on. (role: recent Docs command contributor and helper owner; confidence: high; commits: e51f6be9dc38, 0a7e6425384b, 71a8504d0add; files: internal/cmd/docs.go, internal/cmd/docs_at_anchor.go, internal/cmd/docs_mutation.go)
• sebsnyk: The linked feature request at feat(docs): named-range create / list / delete / replace-content commands #692 provides the named-range command motivation, API references, and acceptance criteria that this PR implements. (role: feature requester; confidence: medium)

• 🦀 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.