• 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 small restart-helper hardening after maintainer review and real handoff proof, then let it close #83892.

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

Yes for the code path: current main lacks both a try/catch around the restart script spawn and a child error listener, and the PR adds focused regressions for both failure modes. I did not run a destructive full update flow in this read-only review.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, the code direction is the narrow maintainable fix: handle both synchronous spawn failures and async child-process error events at runRestartScript while preserving detached handoff behavior. The remaining blocker is proof, not an identified code defect.

Label changes:

• add rating: 🦪 silver shellfish: Current PR rating is 🦪 silver shellfish because proof is 🦪 silver shellfish, patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit, and The patch is small and appears correct, but mock-only proof keeps it below merge-ready for an external bug-fix PR.
• add status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR body uses the proof template, but the after-fix evidence is a focused Vitest run rather than redacted terminal output, logs, or a recording from a real update/restart handoff; updating the PR body with real proof should trigger a fresh ClawSweeper review, or a maintainer can request @clawsweeper re-review. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.
• remove rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool: Current PR rating is rating: 🦪 silver shellfish, so this older rating label is no longer current.

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a normal-priority CLI update crash/availability fix with a narrow restart-helper surface and limited blast radius.
• rating: 🦪 silver shellfish: Current PR rating is 🦪 silver shellfish because proof is 🦪 silver shellfish, patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit, and The patch is small and appears correct, but mock-only proof keeps it below merge-ready for an external bug-fix PR.
• status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR body uses the proof template, but the after-fix evidence is a focused Vitest run rather than redacted terminal output, logs, or a recording from a real update/restart handoff; updating the PR body with real proof should trigger a fresh ClawSweeper review, or a maintainer can request @clawsweeper re-review. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.

What I checked:

• current main source: Current main's runRestartScript spawns /bin/sh or cmd.exe detached and immediately calls unref() with no try/catch and no ChildProcess error listener. (src/cli/update-cli/restart-helper.ts:409, acf265d4d51d)
• PR implementation: PR head wraps the spawn handoff in a try/catch and attaches child.on("error", () => {}) before unref(), preserving the existing detached spawn options. (src/cli/update-cli/restart-helper.ts:409, e224c84c348c)
• PR regression coverage: PR head adds focused tests for a synchronous spawn throw and for invoking the async child-process error handler without throwing, while updating Linux and Windows spawn assertions to require the listener. (src/cli/update-cli/restart-helper.test.ts:642, e224c84c348c)
• dependency contract proof: Node v24.15 documentation says the error event is emitted when a process could not be spawned, and Node v24.15 source shows spawn() constructs a ChildProcess, calls child.spawn(options), then returns the child.
• proof gate: The PR body's Real behavior proof section reports only node scripts/run-vitest.mjs src/cli/update-cli/restart-helper.test.ts --reporter=verbose; that is useful regression coverage but not a real update/restart handoff run. (e224c84c348c)
• protected review state: The provided live GitHub context lists the protected maintainer label, so conservative cleanup should keep this PR open for explicit maintainer handling.

Likely related people:

• steipete: Current main blame for runRestartScript and the update-command caller points to a recent carry-forward commit, and shortlog/history show the most touches in the update CLI/restart helper area. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: a705a9c911bc, 438799e929d4, 089e038dfeb9; files: src/cli/update-cli/restart-helper.ts, src/cli/update-cli/restart-helper.test.ts, src/cli/update-cli/update-command.ts)
• artale: git log -S runRestartScript traces the standalone restart-script helper and its initial test/update-command integration to the February update restart implementation. (role: introduced behavior; confidence: high; commits: b1d5c71609c3; files: src/cli/update-cli/restart-helper.ts, src/cli/update-cli/restart-helper.test.ts, src/cli/update-cli/update-command.ts)
• vincentkoc: Recent update CLI history includes self-update restart flow work in update-command.ts, which is adjacent to the restart handoff path this PR changes. (role: adjacent update-flow contributor; confidence: medium; commits: a24af4910018; files: src/cli/update-cli/update-command.ts)

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against acf265d4d51d.

• The egg game starts only after the PR passes the real-behavior proof check.
• Before that, no creature or rarity is rolled. The treat waits for real proof.
• This is still just collectible flavor: proof affects review readiness, not creature quality.