• 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.

• 🦀 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.

Best possible solution:

Land the focused fail-fast validation after maintainer acceptance of the compatibility impact, then let the merge close #83923.

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

Yes. Source inspection on current main shows invalid explicit opts.port becomes null and is replaced by the configured/default port before runNodeHost; the PR body supplies matching after-fix live CLI output, though I did not run it locally because this review is read-only.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. The patch is the narrow maintainable fix: reject only explicit invalid --port values, preserve omitted-port fallback, reuse the existing invalid-port message, and add focused regression coverage.

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a normal CLI bugfix with limited blast radius around openclaw node run --port handling.
• merge-risk: 🚨 compatibility: The PR deliberately changes invalid explicit --port inputs from fallback startup to fail-fast exit, which can break scripts relying on the old fallback.
• rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Current PR rating is 🦞 diamond lobster because proof is 🦞 diamond lobster, patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster, and Focused patch with real CLI proof, targeted coverage, and no blocking findings; only maintainer-owned compatibility acceptance remains.
• 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 real CLI proof from a WSL checkout showing the invalid-port command exits with the expected error and leaves no node-host process running.
• proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The PR body includes after-fix real CLI proof from a WSL checkout showing the invalid-port command exits with the expected error and leaves no node-host process running.

What I checked:

• Current-main bug path: Current main still uses parsePortWithFallback, so an invalid explicit opts.port that parses to null is replaced by the configured/default port before runNodeHost is called. (src/cli/node-cli/register.ts:18, 7f4462e5c06d)
• Adjacent CLI contract: node install already treats an explicitly invalid port as a CLI error via formatInvalidPortOption("--port"), which supports the PR's consistency argument. (src/cli/node-cli/daemon.ts:82, 7f4462e5c06d)
• Shared parser contract: parsePort returns null for nullish, non-integer, non-finite, non-numeric, zero/negative, and values above 65535, so the PR can distinguish omitted --port from invalid explicit values. (src/cli/shared/parse-port.ts:9, 7f4462e5c06d)
• PR implementation: The PR replaces the silent fallback helper with an omitted-only fallback, emits Invalid --port, exits, and returns before runNodeHost when the explicit port is invalid. (src/cli/node-cli/register.ts:58, c6a8ad803a48)
• Regression coverage and formatting proof: The PR adds focused tests for invalid, valid, and omitted node run --port paths; the reviewed diff also passes git diff --check for the touched files. (src/cli/node-cli/register.test.ts:69, c6a8ad803a48)
• Discussion and proof context: The PR body and follow-up comment provide after-fix WSL CLI proof: node run --port abc exits with Invalid --port, exit status 1, and no matching node-host process afterward; labels include proof: sufficient, maintainer, and compatibility merge risk. (c6a8ad803a48)

Likely related people:

• Shakker: Current checkout blame and git log --follow route the node CLI registration file and shared port parser surface through commit b248b48, so this is the strongest local history signal for the affected path. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: medium; commits: b248b4816b0d; files: src/cli/node-cli/register.ts, src/cli/shared/parse-port.ts)

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against 7f4462e5c06d.

• Eggs appear after the PR passes real-behavior proof. It is here for vibes, not verdicts: it does not change labels, ratings, merge decisions, or automation.
• The shell reacts to review momentum: open follow-up work warms it up, re-review makes it wobble, and a clean final review lets it hatch.
• Hatchability usually comes from sufficient real-behavior proof, no blocking P0/P1/P2 findings, no security attention needed, and clean correctness. A merged PR is already final, so merge makes the egg hatchable independently.
• The hatch is seeded from this repository and PR number, so the same PR keeps the same creature; the reviewed head SHA can only change safe visual details.
• Rarity is just collectible sparkle: 🥚 common, 🌱 uncommon, 💎 rare, ✨ glimmer, and 🌈 legendary.