Best possible solution:

Land this after the base QA migration, keeping Gateway smoke coverage in the QA e2e scenario with no supported references to the deleted dev script.

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

Not applicable; this is a cleanup PR review rather than a bug report. The relevant check is whether the migrated QA e2e test preserves the old script coverage and stale references are removed.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes; moving the repo-only smoke helper into QA Lab's Vitest scenario is the narrower owner-boundary cleanup, provided the stacked base lands first or this branch is refreshed.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against b3f315461ba7.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is low-risk internal test and QA cleanup rather than a user-facing runtime bug or urgent regression.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🦞 diamond lobster and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: The external contributor proof gate does not apply to this maintainer/member test cleanup PR; the body records targeted Vitest, QA suite, formatting, diff-check, and autoreview commands.

PR surface:

Tests +150, Other -172. Total -22 across 5 files.

What I checked:

• Repository policy read and applied: Root policy plus scoped scripts/ and test/ guides were read; the protected maintainer label and scripts/test cleanup guidance affected the review path. (AGENTS.md:1, b3f315461ba7)
• Current main still has the standalone smoke helper: Current main still exports runGatewaySmoke from scripts/dev/gateway-smoke.ts, so this PR is not obsolete on main. (scripts/dev/gateway-smoke.ts:90, b3f315461ba7)
• PR head moves the helper into QA e2e coverage: At PR head, runGatewaySmoke is local to the QA Lab Gateway smoke e2e test and continues to use the Gateway protocol min/max constants and WebSocket client helper. (test/e2e/qa-lab/runtime/gateway-smoke.e2e.test.ts:91, cf371a499aa6)
• QA scenario executes the migrated test path: The stacked branch's Gateway smoke scenario is a Vitest scenario pointing at the migrated QA e2e file. (qa/scenarios/runtime/gateway-smoke.yaml:25, cf371a499aa6)
• No supported external reference found on current main: Current-main references to the deleted script are limited to its test, the script itself, and the protocol guard; docs/package surfaces did not reference it. (b3f315461ba7)
• Live PR state: Live GitHub metadata shows this PR is open, mergeable, labeled maintainer, and stacked on test: fold lifecycle and package proof into QA Lab #93114. (cf371a499aa6)

Likely related people:

• kesslerio: Current-main blame and PR metadata point to Martin Kessler for the existing Gateway smoke script, its test, and the protocol guard paths now being folded into QA e2e coverage. (role: introduced behavior; confidence: high; commits: aefd49909d41; files: scripts/dev/gateway-smoke.ts, test/scripts/gateway-smoke.test.ts, packages/gateway-protocol/src/native-protocol-levels.guard.test.ts)
• RomneyDa: Recent merged QA scenario YAML, profile runner, and evidence-shape work owns the QA Lab path this cleanup extends, independent of this PR author role. (role: recent QA Lab contributor; confidence: high; commits: 1f8c4d3958b2, e8db9c3bc0df, fef839407995; files: qa/scenarios/index.yaml, extensions/qa-lab/src/test-file-scenario-runner.ts, extensions/qa-lab/src/suite-launch.runtime.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.