Best possible solution:

Merge a narrow state-integrity detector after redacted real Windows doctor output confirms the warning and the paired issue stays linked until the PR lands.

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

Yes from source, but not from a live Windows run in this review. Current main only has the macOS cloud-synced state-dir detector, so a Windows OneDrive-style state dir has no equivalent doctor warning path before this PR.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, with a proof gap. The state-integrity doctor module owns state-dir durability warnings and the structured health contribution consumes the same issue mapping, so adding a Windows sibling detector there is the narrow maintainable fix.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against b63e06f68aa0.

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a normal-priority Windows doctor diagnostic bug fix with limited blast radius and no evidence of an urgent runtime outage.
• rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Overall readiness is 🧂 unranked krab; proof is 🧂 unranked krab and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR body lists test commands but does not show after-fix Windows doctor output, screenshot, logs, or another redacted real behavior artifact demonstrating the new warning. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.

PR surface:

Source +118, Tests +122, Docs +6. Total +246 across 5 files.

What I checked:

• PR diff: The head diff adds a windows-cloud-state-dir issue kind, a Windows cloud storage detector, structured health finding and repair-effect handling, a human noteStateIntegrity warning, tests, and docs updates. (src/commands/doctor-state-integrity.ts:91, 81eaec14bf1e)
• Current main behavior: Current main calls only detectMacCloudSyncedStateDir before Linux state storage checks in detectStateIntegrityHealthIssues; the source search found no Windows cloud-state detector on main. (src/commands/doctor-state-integrity.ts:779, b63e06f68aa0)
• Doctor entry points: Human doctor output calls noteStateIntegrity, and the structured health contribution maps detectStateIntegrityHealthIssues through finding and repair-effect converters, so the PR touches the right runtime path for both outputs. (src/flows/doctor-health-contributions.ts:613, b63e06f68aa0)
• Sibling coverage: Existing current-main sibling tests cover macOS cloud state and Linux SD/eMMC state detectors; the PR adds analogous Windows cloud-storage cases and includes the new test in the commands-light shard map. (src/commands/doctor-state-integrity.cloud-storage.test.ts:1, b63e06f68aa0)
• Docs context: Current docs describe macOS cloud-synced state-dir warnings and the Windows Gateway page currently lacks the new Windows cloud-state guidance; the PR updates both surfaces to match the new detector. Public docs: docs/gateway/doctor.md. (docs/gateway/doctor.md:400, b63e06f68aa0)
• Proof gate: The PR body lists commands that were run, but it does not include redacted Windows openclaw doctor output, logs, terminal screenshot, or another after-fix real behavior artifact showing the new warning; GitHub's Real behavior proof check is failing. (81eaec14bf1e)

Likely related people:

• xialonglee: The current state-integrity module, macOS cloud-state detector, cloud-storage tests, and related docs all blame to commit e172447, whose merged PR metadata lists xialonglee as author. (role: introduced current state-integrity module; confidence: medium; commits: e1724474d639; files: src/commands/doctor-state-integrity.ts, src/commands/doctor-state-integrity.cloud-storage.test.ts, docs/gateway/doctor.md)
• giodl73-repo: Recent commits in src/flows/doctor-health-contributions.ts expose several Doctor diagnostics as structured findings, adjacent to this PR's structured state-integrity output path. (role: recent adjacent doctor structured-health contributor; confidence: medium; commits: a1cddbdb5787, 4ac5cf863673, 816038e97a5d; files: src/flows/doctor-health-contributions.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.