Best possible solution:

Keep the PR open for maintainer review, settle the base accessor seam first, then require redacted real gateway runtime proof for an affected session RPC before merge.

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

Not applicable: this is a refactor PR, not a bug report with a failing current-main reproduction path. The review evidence is source/diff inspection plus the contributor's listed focused validation.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear until maintainer review of the base seam is complete. The slice is a plausible narrow step for the Path 3 migration, but it should not be treated as the best final path until #88840 is accepted or revised.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against d5ce1edf7e79.

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a normal-priority internal session-state migration slice with limited immediate user impact but meaningful gateway-session correctness risk.
• merge-risk: 🚨 session-state: The diff changes gateway session row lookup and resolution paths where a seam regression could hide, stale, or mis-associate sessions.
• rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Overall readiness is 🧂 unranked krab; proof is 🧂 unranked krab 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 body lists tests, lint, formatting, and branch validation, but no redacted terminal/log output, recording, or linked artifact showing an affected gateway RPC after the patch. 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.

PR surface:

Source +35, Tests -2. Total +33 across 5 files.

What I checked:

• Repository review policy applied: Root policy requires full AGENTS.md review, whole-surface PR review, session-state compatibility caution, and real behavior proof for user-visible review confidence; scoped gateway policy was also read. (AGENTS.md:28, d5ce1edf7e79)
• Scoped gateway policy applied: The gateway scoped guide emphasizes hot-path discipline and focused gateway test verification for gateway server changes. (src/gateway/AGENTS.md:1, d5ce1edf7e79)
• Current main behavior: Current main still resolves key-based gateway session reads by resolving the target then loading the session store directly, which is the behavior this PR is moving behind the seam. (src/gateway/sessions-resolve.ts:121, d5ce1edf7e79)
• Proposed gateway handler surface: The PR head adds loadSessionEntriesForTarget and uses it for sessions.describe and sessions.get, so the changed runtime surface is gateway session row/message reads. (src/gateway/server-methods/sessions.ts:261, 9aecae2c459d)
• Proposed resolve seam use: The PR head uses resolveGatewaySessionStoreTargetWithStore({ clone: false }) for key resolution and refreshes the seam after legacy-key migration. (src/gateway/sessions-resolve.ts:120, 9aecae2c459d)
• Base seam contract: The stacked base accessor seam exposes listSessionEntries, which currently delegates to the file-backed store and preserves clone behavior; this PR depends on that open seam shape. (src/config/sessions/session-accessor.ts:136, b39023fc3ca4)

Likely related people:

• Peter Steinberger: Local blame on the current-main gateway/session lookup and combined-store functions points to recent work in the touched area. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: medium; commits: f8f7ba8f0178; files: src/gateway/session-utils.ts, src/gateway/sessions-resolve.ts, src/config/sessions/combined-store-gateway.ts)
• jalehman: The provided PR context shows this contributor authored the current gateway seam slice and the related session-accessor migration tracker/base stack, so they are a likely follow-up owner for this branch even though current-main ownership is separate. (role: migration stack author; confidence: medium; commits: 897eb03e29c3, 9aecae2c459d, b39023fc3ca4; files: src/gateway/server-methods/sessions.ts, src/gateway/sessions-resolve.ts, src/gateway/session-utils.ts)

• 🦀 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.