Best possible solution:

Land the focused QA coverage cleanup after maintainer review and required checks, keeping coverage claims scoped to existing Gateway client tests and shared MCP bridge fixtures.

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

Not applicable; this is QA coverage cleanup rather than a bug report. I checked the current-main absence, catalog discovery path, Docker harness mount path, and moved helper call paths instead of reproducing a failing user flow.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes; linking existing Gateway coverage through native YAML scenario metadata and consolidating one-use helper coverage is narrower than adding new taxonomy IDs or runtime behavior.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 938855082ade.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is low-risk internal QA/catalog and test-helper cleanup with no user-facing runtime behavior change.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool 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 because this is a repository-member PR; the body includes targeted command evidence for the changed QA/test surfaces.

PR surface:

Tests -20, Other -107. Total -127 across 13 files.

What I checked:

• Repository policy read and applied: Root AGENTS.md plus scripts/AGENTS.md and test/AGENTS.md were read fully; the relevant guidance was maintainer-label handling, QA YAML scenario rules, script wrapper routing, and fake-timer test placement. (AGENTS.md:1, 938855082ade)
• Protected PR state: Live PR metadata shows author RomneyDa is a repository member and the PR has the protected maintainer label at head 2aff6ea, so conservative cleanup close is not allowed. (2aff6eaecd54)
• Scenario coverage claim: The PR's new QA scenario links three existing primary Gateway coverage IDs and points execution at the existing Gateway client test path rather than adding taxonomy or runtime behavior. (qa/scenarios/runtime/mcp-gateway-connect-startup-retry.yaml:7, 2aff6eaecd54)
• Not already on current main: Current main does not have qa/scenarios/runtime/mcp-gateway-connect-startup-retry.yaml, so the central scenario inventory change is not obsolete. (938855082ade)
• Current helper state: Current main still wires the MCP harness through standalone script helpers, which the PR consolidates under the QA Lab runtime fixture path. (scripts/e2e/mcp-channels-harness.ts:15, 938855082ade)
• Scenario catalog discovery: The QA Lab catalog recursively loads nested YAML files under qa/scenarios and excludes only index.yaml, so the new runtime YAML is discoverable without index.yaml changes. (extensions/qa-lab/src/scenario-catalog.ts:421, 938855082ade)

Likely related people:

• RomneyDa: Authored the recently merged QA Lab Gateway migration in Migrate Tool Search gateway E2E into QA Lab flow #97478, adjacent to this PR's QA scenario and Gateway coverage cleanup. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 4b8a0a8ecf83; files: qa/scenarios/runtime/tool-search-gateway-e2e.yaml, extensions/qa-lab/src/scenario-flow-runner.ts, extensions/qa-lab/src/tool-search-gateway.fixture.ts)
• giodl73-repo: GitHub commit metadata and blame for the shallow current-main baseline point to this login for the QA catalog and MCP helper files this PR reorganizes. (role: current-main provenance signal; confidence: medium; commits: 9c5ee4676d07; files: extensions/qa-lab/src/scenario-catalog.ts, scripts/e2e/mcp-channels-harness.ts, scripts/e2e/mcp-client-temp-state.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.