Best possible solution:

Land this after session/reply owner review confirms the reentrant writer scope and refreshed validation, while keeping Telegram spool backoff and skillsSnapshot fixes tracked separately.

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

Yes, at source level: current main reads the reply-session initialization snapshot before the guarded commit serializes the store mutation, allowing same-session initializers to share a stale revision. I did not run the failing path locally because this was a read-only review.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, this appears to be the right owner-boundary fix for the in-process race because it keeps the snapshot read and guarded commit in the session-store writer lane. The remaining judgment is whether the broader writer scope is acceptable or should be narrowed before landing.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 1aa7cafc35a1.

Label changes:

• add mantis: telegram-visible-proof: Mantis should capture Telegram visible proof. The fix changes Telegram-visible reply delivery behavior because successful proof should show replies no longer hot-loop or stall after session initialization conflicts.

Label justifications:

• P1: The PR targets a user-facing Telegram replay loop that can keep a channel workflow stuck behind repeated reply-session initialization conflicts.
• merge-risk: 🚨 session-state: The diff changes the serialization boundary for reply-session initialization and nested session-store commits, which can affect session identity and rollover state.
• merge-risk: 🚨 availability: The diff changes writer reentrancy and queue ownership duration, so a mistake could stall reply-session initialization.
• 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. Sufficient (live_output): The PR body includes live-output style proof for focused tests, a Telegram bot-to-bot mock SUT E2E reply, and the Real behavior proof check passed on the PR head.
• proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The PR body includes live-output style proof for focused tests, a Telegram bot-to-bot mock SUT E2E reply, and the Real behavior proof check passed on the PR head.
• mantis: telegram-visible-proof: Mantis should capture Telegram visible proof. The fix changes Telegram-visible reply delivery behavior because successful proof should show replies no longer hot-loop or stall after session initialization conflicts.

PR surface:

Source +84, Tests +114. Total +198 across 7 files.

What I checked:

• Current main race shape: Current main loads the reply-session initialization snapshot before entering the guarded commit writer path, so same-session initializers can share the same revision before one commit invalidates another. (src/auto-reply/reply/session.ts:409, 1aa7cafc35a1)
• Current guarded commit behavior: The commit path compares the caller's expected revision inside updateSessionStore and returns stale-snapshot when the writer-owned entry changed. (src/config/sessions/session-accessor.ts:1731, 1aa7cafc35a1)
• PR writer-lane change: PR head resolves the store path, then runs initSessionStateAttemptLocked under runExclusiveSessionStoreWrite so snapshot read and commit share the writer lane. (src/auto-reply/reply/session.ts:303, 1c229d4ca28b)
• PR reentrant writer guard: PR head only bypasses queueing when reentrant is true and AsyncLocalStorage shows the same queues and store path are already active. (src/shared/store-writer-queue.ts:136, 1c229d4ca28b)
• Nested commit reentrancy: PR head marks commitReplySessionInitialization's nested updateSessionStore call as reentrant, avoiding self-deadlock inside the outer writer lane. (src/config/sessions/session-accessor.ts:1779, 1c229d4ca28b)
• Regression coverage: PR head adds tests for nested same-store reentrancy, AsyncLocalStorage leak prevention, and concurrent initSessionState initializers queued behind a held writer. (src/config/sessions/store-writer.test.ts:39, 1c229d4ca28b)

Likely related people:

• jalehman: Recent main history shows repeated session-accessor work and the guarded reply-session initialization boundary this PR changes. (role: reply-session initialization feature-history contributor; confidence: high; commits: 95e37f8e9517, 7e2b2d2987b2, b58e6e0734f2; files: src/auto-reply/reply/session.ts, src/config/sessions/session-accessor.ts)
• vincentkoc: Path history shows this contributor introduced the shared store-writer queue and adjacent session writer abstractions now gaining reentrancy. (role: shared store-writer queue contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 27e13933c0f3, 884a6a113ccf, e3058efa1042; files: src/shared/store-writer-queue.ts, src/config/sessions/store-writer.ts, src/config/sessions/store.ts)
• obviyus: Beyond this PR, path history shows recent merged work in Telegram polling recovery and isolated-ingress behavior related to the user-visible replay loop. (role: recent Telegram isolated-ingress contributor and current fix author; confidence: medium; commits: dc09324ec2e1, d4819948f37d, 0b26a1bca728; files: extensions/telegram/src/polling-session.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.