Best possible solution:

Keep this PR open for maintainer handling; if the qa-lab label ownership is intentional, the narrowed docs-link approach is the right layer to land once the draft is ready.

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

Not applicable: this is a docs and labeler metadata PR, not a user bug report. Source inspection confirms the new links target existing maturity pages and the new source-path guidance matches the renderer/workflow inputs.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: after the renderer/workflow landed separately, the narrow maintainable docs solution is to link the existing scorecard pages and document that generated maturity docs come from taxonomy.yaml and qa/maturity-scores.yaml.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against da15cf48bf48.

Label changes:

• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• add status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: Not applicable: this is a maintainer-authored docs/labeler PR, and the external-contributor real behavior proof gate does not apply.
• remove rating: 🦪 silver shellfish: Current PR rating is rating: 🐚 platinum hermit, so this older rating label is no longer current.
• remove status: ⏳ waiting on author: Current PR status label is status: 👀 ready for maintainer look.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is low-priority docs and labeler-maintenance work with no runtime behavior change.
• merge-risk: 🚨 automation: The diff changes labeler ownership so future maturity docs edits will be labeled as extensions: qa-lab work.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: Not applicable: this is a maintainer-authored docs/labeler PR, and the external-contributor real behavior proof gate does not apply.

PR surface:

Docs +11, Config +1. Total +12 across 4 files.

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: Root AGENTS.md and docs/AGENTS.md were read fully; docs link rules and protected maintainer PR handling apply to this review. (AGENTS.md:1, da15cf48bf48)
• Live PR state: GitHub reports this PR is open, draft, maintainer-labeled, and mergeable/clean at head 3674ec4. (3674ec478ebd)
• Current narrowed diff: The PR currently changes only .github/labeler.yml, docs/AGENTS.md, docs/concepts/qa-e2e-automation.md, and docs/help/testing.md. (3674ec478ebd)
• Target docs routes exist: Current main registers maturity/scorecard and maturity/taxonomy in docs/docs.json, so the new root-relative links point at existing pages. Public docs: docs/docs.json. (docs/docs.json:1863, da15cf48bf48)
• Generated scorecard page exists: Current main has docs/maturity/scorecard.md with the Maturity scorecard page frontmatter and heading. Public docs: docs/maturity/scorecard.md. (docs/maturity/scorecard.md:1, da15cf48bf48)
• Renderer source paths match PR guidance: Current main's renderer defaults to taxonomy.yaml and qa/maturity-scores.yaml, matching the PR's new docs editing guidance. (scripts/qa/render-maturity-docs.ts:30, da15cf48bf48)

Likely related people:

• RomneyDa: Authored the current PR plus merged maturity scorecard renderer and claw-score skill PRs that this docs slice depends on. (role: recent maturity scorecard contributor; confidence: high; commits: 3674ec478ebd, 6e725ec1478b, 846591b55427; files: docs/AGENTS.md, docs/concepts/qa-e2e-automation.md, docs/help/testing.md)
• kevinslin: Authored the merged taxonomy snapshot PR that introduced taxonomy.yaml and initial maturity score data used by the scorecard docs flow. (role: taxonomy source contributor; confidence: medium; commits: a54f50a41ba0; files: taxonomy.yaml, docs/maturity-scores.yaml)

• 🦀 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.