Best possible solution:

Land the narrow test-only reorder after normal exact-head or merge-ref checks; no product, config, or API change is needed.

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

Yes by source inspection: Swift requires labeled arguments in declaration order, and current main passes totalTokensFresh after contextTokens plus activeAgentId before transport. I did not run swift test in this read-only review.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. Reordering the three test call sites is the narrowest maintainable fix because the current constructor declarations are internally consistent and no overload or API change is needed.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 01d6ea1f0e87.

Label changes:

• add P2: This fixes a concrete shared-kit test-module compile break with limited blast radius and no runtime user impact.
• add proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The PR body includes after-fix live output for the focused swift test command with 11/11 passing, which is adequate for this test-only compile repair.
• 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. Sufficient (live_output): The PR body includes after-fix live output for the focused swift test command with 11/11 passing, which is adequate for this test-only compile repair.

Label justifications:

• P2: This fixes a concrete shared-kit test-module compile break with limited blast radius and no runtime user impact.
• 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. Sufficient (live_output): The PR body includes after-fix live output for the focused swift test command with 11/11 passing, which is adequate for this test-only compile repair.
• proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The PR body includes after-fix live output for the focused swift test command with 11/11 passing, which is adequate for this test-only compile repair.

PR surface:

Other 0. Total 0 across 2 files.

What I checked:

• Current constructor order for session entries: OpenClawChatSessionEntry.init declares totalTokensFresh before modelProvider, model, and contextTokens, so the current test call with totalTokensFresh after contextTokens is invalid Swift argument order. (apps/shared/OpenClawKit/Sources/OpenClawChatUI/ChatSessions.swift:123, 01d6ea1f0e87)
• Current constructor order for chat view model: OpenClawChatViewModel.init declares transport before activeAgentId, matching the PR's reordered calls. (apps/shared/OpenClawKit/Sources/OpenClawChatUI/ChatViewModel.swift:258, 01d6ea1f0e87)
• Current main still has the failing call pattern: Source inspection found the three out-of-order current-main call sites: one contextTokens before totalTokensFresh call and two activeAgentId before transport calls. (apps/shared/OpenClawKit/Tests/OpenClawKitTests/ChatContextUsageTests.swift:150, 01d6ea1f0e87)
• PR diff is narrowly scoped: The PR only moves labels at the three test call sites and does not change runtime code, public APIs, dependencies, workflows, or config. (apps/shared/OpenClawKit/Tests/OpenClawKitTests/ChatContextUsageTests.swift:150, 6dfb3f3c4d4c)
• Related prior compile fix is adjacent, not superseding: The related merged PR fixed a different OpenClawKit test compile error; it supports the same shared-kit validation gap but does not replace this PR's three call-order fixes. (8af88e2fcc57)
• Feature history provenance: GitHub path history shows the changed test files were introduced by the recent native chat shell/context usage work in commit bb658d0, making that PR the relevant source-history anchor for this repair. (apps/shared/OpenClawKit/Tests/OpenClawKitTests/ChatContextUsageTests.swift:1, bb658d0a6d98)

Likely related people:

• steipete: Recent GitHub path history for the changed shared OpenClawKit tests and adjacent chat model/session files points to Peter's merged native chat shell, context usage, and session work, including the PR that introduced these test files. (role: recent Apple chat surface contributor and affected-test introducer; confidence: high; commits: bb658d0a6d98, 91d4e8ed8e66, 4babbb2f6f3e; files: apps/shared/OpenClawKit/Tests/OpenClawKitTests/ChatContextUsageTests.swift, apps/shared/OpenClawKit/Tests/OpenClawKitTests/ChatViewModelSessionDeletionTests.swift, apps/shared/OpenClawKit/Sources/OpenClawChatUI/ChatViewModel.swift)

• 🦀 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.