Best possible solution:

Keep the focused tryProcessCwd() output fallback and regression coverage, then land it after a redacted real terminal run demonstrates successful build or init completion when the launch directory disappears.

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

Yes at source level: current main calls process.cwd() after successful authoring writes, and the focused tests exercise the resulting failure branch. A real current-main CLI reproduction transcript has not been supplied.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. Reusing the existing safe-cwd helper only while formatting final status paths is narrower and more maintainable than changing target resolution, write behavior, or adding a new fallback/configuration path.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against f167089d6176.

Label justifications:

• P2: The PR fixes a real but narrow plugin-authoring CLI failure mode without affecting normal command behavior or broad runtime availability.
• rating: 🦪 silver shellfish: Overall readiness is 🦪 silver shellfish; proof is 🦪 silver shellfish and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR provides filesystem-writing regression tests with a mocked cwd failure, but no actual after-fix CLI transcript or runtime artifact; add redacted terminal output, update the PR body to trigger review, or ask a maintainer to comment @clawsweeper re-review.

PR surface:

Source +6, Tests +64. Total +70 across 2 files.

What I checked:

• Current-main failure path: Current main formats successful plugin build and init output with path.relative(process.cwd(), ...) after completing file writes, so a removed launch directory can convert successful work into an uv_cwd exception. (src/cli/plugins-authoring-command.ts:307, f167089d6176)
• Focused implementation: The branch introduces a local formatter that calls the existing tryProcessCwd() helper, preserves relative output when cwd exists, and returns the already-resolved target path when it does not. (src/cli/plugins-authoring-command.ts:63, a00b1bc5dc6e)
• Covered entry points: The formatter is applied to both final build outputs and the final init output; the PR does not alter target resolution, generated contents, validation, or write ordering. (src/cli/plugins-authoring-command.ts:315, a00b1bc5dc6e)
• Regression coverage: The added build and init cases perform real scaffold/manifest/package writes but simulate the unavailable-cwd condition by mocking process.cwd(), so they establish code-path coverage rather than real CLI behavior proof. (src/cli/plugins-authoring-command.test.ts:316, a00b1bc5dc6e)
• Documented command surface: Public plugin documentation confirms that plugins init scaffolds a tool plugin and plugins build writes the generated manifest and aligned package metadata, matching the two user-facing paths changed here. (docs.openclaw.ai) Public docs: docs/cli/plugins.md. (docs/cli/plugins.md:46, f167089d6176)
• Proof continuity: The PR body still lists only the focused test, formatting, and diff checks; no redacted terminal transcript, runtime log, screenshot, recording, or linked artifact demonstrates an actual after-fix CLI run, and the head remains the previously reviewed SHA. (a00b1bc5dc6e)

Likely related people:

• steipete: Recent merged history shows broad ownership of plugin architecture, CLI documentation, and plugin API refactors adjacent to this authoring command surface. (role: plugin architecture contributor; confidence: low; commits: 7a6be3d531, 90b6665ded; files: src/cli/plugins-authoring-command.ts, docs/cli/plugins.md)
• vincentkoc: Recent release history repeatedly connects this contributor to plugin lifecycle, packaging, marketplace, and compatibility work, making them a plausible adjacent reviewer for plugin-authoring behavior. (role: recent plugin-system contributor; confidence: low; files: src/cli/plugins-authoring-command.ts, docs/cli/plugins.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.

• reviewed 2026-07-13T14:28:24.232Z sha a00b1bc :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: none