Best possible solution:

Land the existing QaTransportAdapter-based requirements layer after ordinary maintainer review, while keeping later Slack, Telegram, and WhatsApp scenario ports in separate follow-up PRs.

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

Not applicable: this PR adds internal QA Lab infrastructure rather than reporting a runtime bug. The relevant confidence path is source review plus the exact-head QA Lab and CI checks.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: the PR keeps scenario requirements on the existing QaTransportAdapter and live transport scenario metadata path, which is the narrowest maintainable owner boundary I found in the surrounding QA Lab code.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 15de9d881a84.

Label justifications:

• P3: The PR is internal QA Lab developer infrastructure with no end-user runtime, config, provider, storage, or channel-delivery impact.
• 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 real behavior proof gate does not apply to this maintainer-labeled internal QA infrastructure PR.

PR surface:

Source +168, Tests +153. Total +321 across 8 files.

What I checked:

• Protected maintainer PR: Live PR metadata shows this PR is open, unmerged, authored by a repository member, and labeled maintainer, so conservative cleanup should not auto-close it. (b2e265548cbe)
• Current main transport contract: Current main already centralizes QA transport actions and common capabilities on QaTransportAdapter, so the PR builds on the existing adapter surface instead of adding a parallel driver abstraction. (extensions/qa-lab/src/qa-transport.ts:160, 15de9d881a84)
• PR head requirement helper: The PR head maps every live standard scenario id to transport capability requirements and checks unsupported requirements against adapter capabilities plus supportedActions. (extensions/qa-lab/src/qa-transport-scenarios.ts:46, b2e265548cbe)
• Production reachability: The new helpers are re-exported from the existing live transport scenario metadata module, making the layer reachable from the current QA Lab live transport path. (extensions/qa-lab/src/live-transports/shared/live-transport-scenarios.ts:18, b2e265548cbe)
• Sibling transport behavior: Current main has Crabline generic actions throw while qa-channel owns action handling; the PR's default empty supportedActions plus qa-channel override preserves that sibling distinction. (extensions/qa-lab/src/crabline-transport.ts:260, 15de9d881a84)
• Validation status: Live exact-head status checks later showed the QA smoke, extension bundled, lint, dependency, test-type, security, and compact CI lanes completed successfully for the reviewed head. (b2e265548cbe)

Likely related people:

• RomneyDa: Current-main blame and logs show this person introduced the QA transport adapter surface and live transport scenario metadata, then extended the adjacent Crabline transport path shortly before this PR. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 18f0eeab20e9, 2cc43aec2deb; files: extensions/qa-lab/src/qa-transport.ts, extensions/qa-lab/src/live-transports/shared/live-transport-scenarios.ts, extensions/qa-lab/src/crabline-transport.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.