Best possible solution:

Land after maintainers accept the direct command contract and the fail-closed docs sed compatibility change, keeping the generated docs, tests, safety-profile denies, and live Docs proof together.

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

Not applicable as a bug reproduction: this is a feature PR. Current main inspection shows the top-level table commands are absent, while the PR diff adds them and reports live Google Docs proof.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, with a maintainer acceptance caveat: sharing request builders between sed and direct commands is the narrow maintainable direction, but the stricter sed behavior is a product/compatibility choice before merge.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against e1be268f70a6.

Label changes:

• add P2: This is a bounded but meaningful Docs command-surface feature with live mutation behavior, not an urgent regression or security issue.
• add merge-risk: 🚨 compatibility: The PR refactors existing docs sed table mutations through stricter helpers that can fail existing scripts on unsafe merged or non-rectangular table references.
• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🦞 diamond lobster 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, and the body nevertheless reports make ci plus disposable live Google Docs proof across the new table operations.

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a bounded but meaningful Docs command-surface feature with live mutation behavior, not an urgent regression or security issue.
• merge-risk: 🚨 compatibility: The PR refactors existing docs sed table mutations through stricter helpers that can fail existing scripts on unsafe merged or non-rectangular table references.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🦞 diamond lobster 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, and the body nevertheless reports make ci plus disposable live Google Docs proof across the new table operations.

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: AGENTS.md was read fully; its PR review flow, parseable output guidance, and safety/config guidance shaped this review. (AGENTS.md:1, e1be268f70a6)
• Current main lacks direct table commands: Current main registers existing Docs commands such as table-column-width, but not the requested table-row, table-column, table-merge, or table-unmerge command surface. (internal/cmd/docs.go:35, e1be268f70a6)
• PR adds the direct command implementation: The PR head defines the new table row/column command structs and execution path, including table selection, row values, tab targeting, and mutation result output. (internal/cmd/docs_table_ops.go:82, b263c73c9b3a)
• PR shares sed table request builders: The PR head routes existing docs sed row/column and merge operations through the new shared table request builders instead of keeping duplicate mutation code. (internal/cmd/docs_sed_table_ops.go:43, b263c73c9b3a)
• Safety profiles deny new mutating commands: The diff adds the new destructive Docs table commands to both agent-safe and readonly profiles with false values, matching the repository safety posture for write operations. (safety-profiles/agent-safe.yaml:152, b263c73c9b3a)
• Related issue context: The linked feature request remains open and asked for top-level table-row/table-column/table-merge commands because current main only exposed this through docs sed; the PR body uses closing syntax for that request.

Likely related people:

• steipete: Recent local and GitHub history ties the Docs command registry, table-column-width command, table target fixes, and the current PR branch to Peter Steinberger. (role: recent area contributor and merger; confidence: high; commits: b34e3033913a, e51f6be9dc38, 0a7e6425384b; files: internal/cmd/docs.go, internal/cmd/docs_table_column_width.go, internal/cmd/docs_sed_table_ops.go)
• Vinston: GitHub path history shows the original sed formatting DSL commit created the sed table operation path that this PR now refactors into shared helpers. (role: introduced behavior; confidence: medium; commits: e2d41ad87c56; files: internal/cmd/docs_sed_table_ops.go)
• chrischall: Merged PR metadata shows chrischall introduced the adjacent direct docs insert-table primitive, which is closely related to this direct Docs table command surface. (role: adjacent feature contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 3a1b15592f47; files: internal/cmd/docs.go, internal/cmd/docs_insert_table.go, internal/cmd/docs_table_inserter.go)
• sebsnyk: The linked feature request came from sebsnyk, and recent Docs command history includes a merged adjacent Docs command credited to that handle, making them useful context for the desired CLI ergonomics. (role: related workflow contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 1b8a750026df; files: internal/cmd/docs.go, docs/docs-editing.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.