Best possible solution:

Land this PR after normal maintainer review if the exact-head checks remain green, keeping the adjacent .d.mts companions as the canonical TypeScript contracts for these internal script modules.

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

Not applicable as a bug reproduction: this PR is an internal cleanup. Source inspection does show current main still has the duplicated test-local script interfaces that the PR removes.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. The PR uses the narrowest maintainable owner boundary by moving TypeScript consumers to the adjacent script declaration companions instead of preserving casts, central ambient declarations, or another parallel type layer.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 6b99fd9a94ce.

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a low-risk internal test/script maintainability refactor with no user-facing behavior change.
• add rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Overall readiness is 🦞 diamond lobster; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• add status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: Maintainer-authored internal test/script refactor; the external contributor real-behavior proof gate does not apply, and the PR body includes Testbox/check validation.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk internal test/script maintainability refactor with no user-facing behavior change.
• rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Overall readiness is 🦞 diamond lobster; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: Maintainer-authored internal test/script refactor; the external contributor real-behavior proof gate does not apply, and the PR body includes Testbox/check validation.

PR surface:

Source -16, Tests -170, Other +152. Total -34 across 8 files.

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: Read root AGENTS.md fully plus scoped scripts/AGENTS.md and test/AGENTS.md; the applicable guidance favors canonical contracts, bounded refactors, wrapper-aware script changes, and no findings for policy-only concerns without concrete behavior risk. (AGENTS.md:1, 6b99fd9a94ce)
• Current-main duplication: Current main has test-local shadow interfaces around test-projects.test-support.mjs imports, matching the PR's stated cleanup target. (src/scripts/test-projects.test.ts:8, 6b99fd9a94ce)
• PR declaration contract: At the PR head, scripts/test-projects.test-support.d.mts declares the additional live exports consumed by the tests, including full-suite planning, concurrency, cache-path, retry, lock, and failed-shard helpers. (scripts/test-projects.test-support.d.mts:44, 6f480b0f05ac)
• Runtime export check: The unchanged implementation exports the functions added to the declaration companion, so the PR is moving the contract to the adjacent declaration rather than adding runtime behavior. (scripts/test-projects.test-support.mjs:4125, 6b99fd9a94ce)
• Related umbrella: The related maintainer issue remains open and tracks this PR as one slice of the Wave 1 internal type-contract consolidation; sibling open PRs cover plugin registry and gateway client slices.
• Validation and status: Live PR metadata shows the PR is mergeable/clean and the body reports focused Testbox validation, changed checks, oxfmt, autoreview, and git diff --check; status rollup showed relevant CI/check lanes succeeding at the reviewed head. (6f480b0f05ac)

Likely related people:

• RomneyDa: RomneyDa authored the Wave 1 umbrella issue and this script-contract implementation slice, and also owns the sibling implementation PRs found for the same umbrella. (role: active implementation owner; confidence: high; commits: 6f480b0f05ac, 38c1139308b1, 9629dafc5767; files: scripts/ci-changed-scope.d.mts, scripts/docs-link-audit.d.mts, scripts/test-projects.test-support.d.mts)
• shakkernerd: GitHub commit metadata and blame tie the current-main script declaration companions to commit ece23c4d3dfa, making this person useful context for the current declaration surface. (role: current declaration companion introducer; confidence: medium; commits: ece23c4d3dfa; files: scripts/ci-changed-scope.d.mts, scripts/docs-link-audit.d.mts, scripts/test-projects.test-support.d.mts)

• 🦀 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.