Best possible solution:

Land this after the native i18n foundation is accepted or included in the base, with the latest Android/native i18n checks green and the new checker kept as the canonical resource-drift gate.

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

Not applicable for a feature PR. Source inspection confirms current main lacks the Android resource matrix and the branch adds it on the stacked head.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, this is the right maintainable direction: Android string resources plus a shared locale/checker path avoid a separate manual localization workflow. I did not find a remaining line-level correctness defect after the latest restack.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against fcb135dfc13e.

Label changes:

• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🐚 platinum hermit 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/member PR, so the external-contributor real behavior proof gate does not apply; command and CI proof are still present in the discussion.
• remove rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Current PR rating is rating: 🐚 platinum hermit, so this older rating label is no longer current.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:

• P2: This is a bounded Android localization/tooling feature with visible user impact but no outage, data loss, or security emergency.
• merge-risk: 🚨 automation: The diff adds an Android i18n package script and native-i18n CI step, so landing changes future validation and automation behavior.
• 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: Not applicable: this is a maintainer/member PR, so the external-contributor real behavior proof gate does not apply; command and CI proof are still present in the discussion.

PR surface:

Tests +14, Config +4, Other +951. Total +969 across 31 files.

What I checked:

• Repository policy read and applied: Root AGENTS.md was read fully, and scoped scripts/test guides were read; the maintainer/protected-label keep-open rule, deep PR-review rule, and automation-risk guidance affected this review. (AGENTS.md:1, fcb135dfc13e)
• Current main lacks the requested Android resource matrix: Current main's default Android strings resource still only defines app_name, with no 35-key gateway/onboarding resource matrix or 21 locale directories. (apps/android/app/src/main/res/values/strings.xml:1, fcb135dfc13e)
• Latest head localizes the previously flagged trust dialog body: At the latest head, the onboarding trust dialog builds its body with R.string.gateway_trust_first_seen or R.string.gateway_trust_changed instead of a raw English literal. (apps/android/app/src/main/java/ai/openclaw/app/ui/OnboardingFlow.kt:254, fde4d261d9cf)
• Latest head preserves a distinct recovery title resource: GatewayRecoveryScreen now uses R.string.gateway_recovery, preserving the distinct recovery title instead of reusing the setup title. (apps/android/app/src/main/java/ai/openclaw/app/ui/OnboardingFlow.kt:663, fde4d261d9cf)
• Latest head consumes the resolved endpoint resource: EndpointPreview now renders stringResource(R.string.resolved_endpoint), so the added resource key is actually used by the visible Connect tab preview. (apps/android/app/src/main/java/ai/openclaw/app/ui/ConnectTabScreen.kt:662, fde4d261d9cf)
• Automation surface changed: The PR adds pnpm android:i18n:check and wires it into the native-i18n job after the existing native inventory check. (.github/workflows/ci.yml:836, fde4d261d9cf)

Likely related people:

• Paul Frederiksen: Current-main blame for the affected Android trust-dialog literals points to this commit across the touched Onboarding and Connect tab files. (role: current-main provenance contributor; confidence: medium; commits: d68ba5edc598; files: apps/android/app/src/main/java/ai/openclaw/app/ui/OnboardingFlow.kt, apps/android/app/src/main/java/ai/openclaw/app/ui/ConnectTabScreen.kt)
• Josh Avant: Recent current-main history on OnboardingFlow includes adjacent Android QR pairing and mobile recovery fixes in the same app surface. (role: recent Android gateway/onboarding contributor; confidence: medium; commits: f55abc0606f0, ad59492d3ca9; files: apps/android/app/src/main/java/ai/openclaw/app/ui/OnboardingFlow.kt)
• vincentkoc: The live PR is assigned to vincentkoc, and the latest comments and commits show vincentkoc carrying the Android localization stack and proof refresh. (role: current i18n stack owner; confidence: medium; commits: 4bef18776c9c, 2990e39a87ca, fde4d261d9cf; files: apps/android/app/src/main/java/ai/openclaw/app/ui/ConnectTabScreen.kt, apps/android/app/src/main/java/ai/openclaw/app/ui/OnboardingFlow.kt, scripts/android-app-i18n.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.