Best possible solution:

Merge the localized spacing and frame adjustment after routine maintainer visual confirmation; retain the existing fitting-width smoke assertion to guard against clipped controls.

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

Not applicable as a deterministic functional failure; current source establishes the original 6pt geometry, while whether it appears cramped is a visual UI judgment.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. The PR changes the existing AppKit layout owner, preserves button behavior, widens the frame by exactly the added gap width, and retains the existing anti-clipping test.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against a498fc511efa.

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a localized, low-risk native macOS appearance refinement with no behavioral, configuration, or compatibility change.
• 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 live maintainer label identifies this as a protected maintainer-authored review path where the external-contributor real-behavior proof gate does not apply.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a localized, low-risk native macOS appearance refinement with no behavioral, configuration, or compatibility change.
• 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 live maintainer label identifies this as a protected maintainer-authored review path where the external-contributor real-behavior proof gate does not apply.

PR surface:

Other +2. Total +2 across 1 file.

What I checked:

• Focused owner-local change: The branch changes only the NSStackView spacing, matching fixed width, and a geometry comment inside the existing AppKit titlebar-control owner. (apps/macos/Sources/OpenClaw/DashboardWindowController.swift:499, 256c734f0e27)
• Geometry remains consistent: The frame gains 12pt, exactly matching the two gaps each increasing by 6pt; the individual button helper and button behavior remain unchanged. (apps/macos/Sources/OpenClaw/DashboardWindowController.swift:497, 256c734f0e27)
• Existing anti-clipping coverage: The macOS smoke test verifies Safari ordering, visible symbols, button states, borderless styling, and that the stack fitting width does not exceed its frame. (apps/macos/Tests/OpenClawIPCTests/DashboardWindowSmokeTests.swift:470, a498fc511efa)
• Not already on main: Current main still uses 6pt spacing and a 104pt frame, so this PR provides a unique visual adjustment. (apps/macos/Sources/OpenClaw/DashboardWindowController.swift:499, a498fc511efa)
• Feature provenance: The related merged PR introduced the native sidebar/back/forward titlebar accessory and its smoke coverage; this PR is a focused follow-up to that implementation. (apps/macos/Sources/OpenClaw/DashboardWindowController.swift:470, df16372af3e1)
• Live protected state: The PR is open, non-draft, mergeable, and carries the protected maintainer label, requiring explicit maintainer handling rather than cleanup closure. (256c734f0e27)

Likely related people:

• steipete: Peter Steinberger authored the merged titlebar-sidebar implementation and its tests, and therefore has direct history with the geometry this PR adjusts. (role: feature introducer and recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 9321c87c0349, df16372af3e1; files: apps/macos/Sources/OpenClaw/DashboardWindowController.swift, apps/macos/Tests/OpenClawIPCTests/DashboardWindowSmokeTests.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.