@vincentkoc - this could use a review when you've got a moment.

Context: checkTokenDrift compares tokens without trimming whitespace, while auditGatewayToken trims both sides. Service-file parsers (systemd, launchd) return trailing newlines, causing a false-positive "Config token differs" warning on every openclaw doctor run. XS PR, 2 files (+26/-2), all 14 tests green.

The "Changes at a glance" table: service-audit.ts:359-382 (trim before compare) and service-audit.test.ts:118-135 (3 new whitespace test cases).

Greptile Summary

This PR fixes a false-positive token-drift warning in the checkTokenDrift function by trimming whitespace from both the service token and config token before comparison. Service-file parsers (systemd, launchd) can return values with trailing newlines or surrounding whitespace, causing identical tokens to appear mismatched.

• service-audit.ts: Implements ?.trim() || undefined normalization for both tokens before all comparisons in checkTokenDrift — correctly handles undefined, empty strings, whitespace-only values, and CRLF-suffixed values.
• service-audit.test.ts: Adds three new test cases covering trailing \n, surrounding spaces, and mixed \r\n padding — all real-world parser output variants that triggered the false positive.

The implementation is minimal, correct, and well-tested. Both files are in good shape for merge.

Note: The PR description appears to have been copied from a different branch (feat/tui-inline-image-rendering) and describes a large TUI image rendering feature across 25 files. The PR title correctly describes what was actually changed. The description should be updated before merging to reflect these actual daemon service audit changes.

Confidence Score: 4/5

• The code changes are correct and safe to merge once the misleading PR description is corrected.
• The code change is minimal, correct, and well-tested with comprehensive coverage of edge cases (trailing newlines, surrounding whitespace, CRLF). The implementation is sound with no logic, syntax, or security issues. The only concern is the entirely mismatched PR description (copied from a different feature branch), which could confuse reviewers and future git historians. This confusion warrants dropping the score from 5 to 4, though the actual code quality is excellent.
• No files require special attention — both changed files are in good shape. The PR description should be corrected before merging.

_{Last reviewed commit: e9af9f1}