Best possible solution:

Land or retarget this OTEL QA scenario cleanup only after #93114 is green, keeping the scenario metadata, changed-test routing, and surviving OTEL smoke command shape aligned.

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

Not applicable: this is an internal PR review for QA/script cleanup, not a reported bug. The relevant verification is source and CI inspection of the QA scenario path, changed-test routing, and parent stack state.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, with the stack caveat: putting the OTEL smoke assertions behind a native QA Lab Vitest scenario is the right owner boundary, but the parent migration should be green and settled before mainline landing.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 20534c57b7e8.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is low-risk internal QA/script cleanup rather than a user-facing runtime regression.
• merge-risk: 🚨 other: The PR is stacked on an open parent branch with inherited failing CI, so merge sequencing is not settled by the small diff alone.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🐚 platinum hermit 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 real-behavior-proof gate does not apply to this member-authored, maintainer-labeled internal QA cleanup; the PR body records targeted commands for maintainer verification.

PR surface:

Tests +8, Other +29. Total +37 across 5 files.

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: Root policy and the scoped scripts, test, and extensions guides were read from current main; their deep-review, QA YAML, script-wrapper, and test placement guidance affected this review. (AGENTS.md:20, 20534c57b7e8)
• Scoped script/test policy read: The scripts guide requires preserving wrapper expectations and changed-file routing; the test guide had no conflicting rule for this e2e relocation. (scripts/AGENTS.md:5, 20534c57b7e8)
• Live PR state: Live GitHub metadata shows this PR is open, mergeable but unstable, labeled maintainer, and based on the open script-to-test-conversion parent branch. (771b22a3bda9)
• Current main does not already have this scenario: Current main still runs the OTEL smoke aliases through scripts/qa-otel-smoke.ts, keeps the old test/scripts/qa-otel-smoke.test.ts, and has no qa/scenarios/runtime/qa-otel-smoke.yaml file. (package.json:1680, 20534c57b7e8)
• PR adds the QA scenario: The PR adds qa-otel-smoke as a native Vitest QA scenario with telemetry.otel primary coverage and the relocated e2e test as its execution path. (qa/scenarios/runtime/qa-otel-smoke.yaml:4, 771b22a3bda9)
• Native test-file scenarios use the repo Vitest wrapper: Current main's QA test-file runner executes Vitest scenarios with node scripts/run-vitest.mjs <scenario.execution.path> --reporter=verbose, matching the new scenario shape. (extensions/qa-lab/src/test-file-scenario-runner.ts:87, 20534c57b7e8)

Likely related people:

• RomneyDa: Recent merged history shows RomneyDa authored the native QA test-file runner and QA profile/evidence consolidation that this stacked PR extends. (role: recent QA Lab contributor; confidence: high; commits: 561b293c7a96, e8db9c3bc0df, 1f8c4d3958b2; files: extensions/qa-lab/src/test-file-scenario-runner.ts, extensions/qa-lab/src/suite-launch.runtime.ts, qa/scenarios/runtime/qa-otel-smoke.yaml)
• vincentkoc: Recent merged commits on scripts/qa-otel-smoke.ts tightened the OTEL smoke assertions, receiver cleanup, and collector-output bounds that this PR turns into QA evidence. (role: current OTEL smoke surface contributor; confidence: high; commits: 96980709399a, 4f9f7e20d40c, 08e38464709f; files: scripts/qa-otel-smoke.ts, test/scripts/qa-otel-smoke.test.ts)
• joshavant: Recent merged OTLP log trace-correlation work touched the same OTEL smoke script and diagnostics behavior covered by the relocated test. (role: recent adjacent contributor; confidence: medium; commits: f3eb8e9714d8; files: scripts/qa-otel-smoke.ts, extensions/diagnostics-otel/src/service.test.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.