Best possible solution:

Land the narrow QA metadata after the PR body reflects the latest two-scenario diff and exact-head checks finish, keeping the existing proof scripts as the execution source instead of duplicating assertions in new scenario logic.

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

Not applicable; this is QA metadata wiring rather than a bug report. The review path is source validation of scenario discovery, taxonomy IDs, referenced proof paths, and the latest PR diff.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes for the patch shape: current QA Lab contracts already support nested YAML, vitest execution, and script execution with args, and the maturity investigation asks for small wrappers around existing proof. The PR body should be refreshed before merge because it no longer matches the latest two-scenario diff.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 597a0ba43ca3.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is low-risk QA metadata and script-lane wiring for maintainer coverage accounting, with no 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 contributor real-behavior-proof gate is not applicable because this is a maintainer-authored PR with the maintainer label; the body still lists focused catalog, coverage, syntax, and autoreview validation.

PR surface:

Other +64. Total +64 across 3 files.

What I checked:

• Latest PR head adds two scenario wrappers: The current b535ce8 head contains clawhub-marketplace-list and packaged-bundled-plugin-install-uninstall scenarios; the release-candidate scenario from the first commit was deleted by the second commit. (qa/scenarios/plugins/clawhub-marketplace-list.yaml:4, b535ce86c868)
• Latest PR head adds the Docker QA lane mapping: The PR maps release-plugin-marketplace to the existing release-plugin-marketplace Docker script in the QA lane wrapper. (scripts/qa/docker-e2e-lane.ts:28, b535ce86c868)
• Current main does not already include the PR changes: At current main 597a0ba, qa/scenarios/plugins lacks the two new scenario files and scripts/qa/docker-e2e-lane.ts lacks the release-plugin-marketplace lane entry. (scripts/qa/docker-e2e-lane.ts:9, 597a0ba43ca3)
• Scenario catalog contract supports the added files: Current main recursively loads nested qa/scenarios YAML files, validates duplicate scenario ids, and does not require manually indexing each new scenario file. (extensions/qa-lab/src/scenario-catalog.ts:421, 597a0ba43ca3)
• Execution contract matches the PR shapes: Current main runs vitest scenarios through scripts/run-vitest.mjs and script scenarios through node --import tsx with declared args, matching both PR scenario execution blocks. (extensions/qa-lab/src/test-file-scenario-runner.ts:111, 597a0ba43ca3)
• Existing maturity work asks for this wrapper shape: The maturity investigation says to add small native scenario YAML wrappers for existing proof paths and lists the same ClawHub marketplace and packaged bundled plugin coverage IDs. (qa/maturity-coverage-investigation.md:100, 597a0ba43ca3)

Likely related people:

• RomneyDa: Recent current-main commits introduced and extended scripts/qa/docker-e2e-lane.ts, the same wrapper this PR extends. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 5327340a09ed, 96c8338d5bfa; files: scripts/qa/docker-e2e-lane.ts)
• Alix-007: Available grafted history attributes the QA catalog, maturity investigation, and proof scripts being linked by this PR to this commit, though the broad graft makes ownership lower-confidence. (role: adjacent existing-proof contributor; confidence: low; commits: 89b5a879090a; files: qa/maturity-coverage-investigation.md, extensions/qa-lab/src/scenario-catalog.ts, scripts/e2e/lib/release-plugin-marketplace/scenario.sh)

• 🦀 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.