Best possible solution:

Land the YAML wrappers after exact-head CI/QA checks finish, or revise any wrapper whose local test is not accepted as primary maturity evidence.

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

Not applicable; this PR is QA coverage bookkeeping rather than a product bug. The native scenario runner and all referenced test files are present on current main.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes; the existing QA contract supports small YAML wrappers with execution.kind: vitest and execution.path, so linking existing tests is narrower than duplicating QA flow logic.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 552ec2b49d4a.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is low-risk QA coverage bookkeeping that links existing deterministic tests into maturity inventory without changing runtime 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: The external-contributor proof gate does not apply to this maintainer-labeled MEMBER PR; the PR body still includes terminal command evidence for the QA suite and coverage run.

PR surface:

Other +160. Total +160 across 7 files.

What I checked:

• Repository policy applied: Root AGENTS.md was read fully; it routes PR review through OpenClaw maintainer workflow and says QA scenario sources under qa/scenarios must be YAML. (AGENTS.md:149, 552ec2b49d4a)
• Live PR state: Live PR metadata shows an open, mergeable PR at head ff62890 with the protected maintainer label and no review comments. (ff6289049084)
• Current main does not already contain the wrappers: Searching current main for the new scenario IDs produced no matches under qa/scenarios or QA Lab source, so the PR is not redundant on main. (552ec2b49d4a)
• Scenario YAML contract: The QA scenario pack explicitly documents native test scenarios with scenario.execution.kind: vitest/playwright/script plus scenario.execution.path, which matches the PR shape. (qa/scenarios/index.yaml:29, 552ec2b49d4a)
• Catalog schema and discovery: Current main validates vitest/playwright/script execution kinds and recursively discovers nested qa/scenarios YAML files, so the added files are in the consumed catalog path. (extensions/qa-lab/src/scenario-catalog.ts:85, 552ec2b49d4a)
• Vitest scenario runner: The native runner treats vitest scenarios as test-file scenarios, invokes scripts/run-vitest.mjs on scenario.execution.path, and carries scenario coverage/docs/code refs into evidence targets. (extensions/qa-lab/src/test-file-scenario-runner.ts:101, 552ec2b49d4a)

Likely related people:

• RomneyDa: Authored the merged native Vitest/Playwright QA scenario runner work in Run Vitest and Playwright scenarios from qa suite #92606 and recent QA evidence/coverage commits touching the same runner and catalog surfaces. (role: feature owner and recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 61a528690de6, f568a4abd3b6, 67b0433cf84c; files: extensions/qa-lab/src/test-file-scenario-runner.ts, extensions/qa-lab/src/suite-launch.runtime.ts, extensions/qa-lab/src/scenario-catalog.ts)
• Solvely-Colin: Authored the merged script-backed QA evidence scenario PR that modified the same catalog, runner, evidence, and scorecard paths. (role: adjacent contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 9df6cecb3595; files: extensions/qa-lab/src/test-file-scenario-runner.ts, extensions/qa-lab/src/evidence-summary.ts, extensions/qa-lab/src/scenario-catalog.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.