Best possible solution:

Land this final cleanup batch only after exact-head checks are green or documented unrelated and maintainer review accepts that the converted loaders preserve their previous lazy-cache semantics.

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

Not applicable as a runtime bug; this is a maintainer refactor implementing a source-level cleanup tracked by the canonical issue. The reviewable check is whether the shared lazy-loader contract preserves existing import-cache behavior.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: using the existing Plugin SDK lazy-runtime helper is the right owner-boundary cleanup, and sampled callers preserve sticky rejection caching, peek() inspection, and no-load-on-close behavior. The remaining blocker is merge readiness, not a different implementation shape.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against c37961fdab6e.

Label changes:

• add merge-risk: 🚨 availability: The PR changes lazy module cache ownership across provider and utility runtime boundaries, where a semantic mismatch could make plugin/provider runtime loading or teardown fail.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is an internal maintainability refactor with no intended user-visible behavior change.
• merge-risk: 🚨 availability: The PR changes lazy module cache ownership across provider and utility runtime boundaries, where a semantic mismatch could make plugin/provider runtime loading or teardown fail.
• 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 is not applicable because this is a maintainer-labeled internal refactor; the PR discussion provides focused tests, build, import-cycle, and Testbox proof as validation context.

PR surface:

Source -179. Total -179 across 35 files.

What I checked:

• Live PR state: Live GitHub shows this PR is open, non-draft, labeled maintainer, at head 0782a9dc63630e7812658c56582b724808e3668d, with 35 files changed and no closing issue reference. (0782a9dc6363)
• Canonical tracker: The linked canonical issue remains open and tracks consolidating lazy dynamic-import memoizers behind the shared lazy-promise owner; related foundation/core/channel batches are already merged, leaving this as the provider/utility batch.
• Shared lazy-runtime contract: createLazyRuntimeSurface delegates to createLazyPromiseLoader with cacheRejections: true, then exposes peek and clear, matching the sticky rejected-import behavior expected by the converted module loaders. (src/shared/lazy-runtime.ts:16, c37961fdab6e)
• Promise cache contract: createLazyPromiseLoader returns the cached promise directly, supports peek and clear, and only evicts rejected loads when rejection caching is not requested. (src/shared/lazy-promise.ts:22, c37961fdab6e)
• Representative lifecycle preservation: On the PR head, the Canvas route handler uses createLazyRuntimeModule, and service shutdown still checks peek() before closing, so stop does not start the route handler just to close it. (extensions/canvas/index.ts:58, 0782a9dc6363)
• Representative memory close behavior: On the PR head, memory search manager close paths use the lazy loader's peek() guard before importing builtin manager cleanup, preserving the old no-load-on-close behavior. (extensions/memory-core/src/memory/search-manager.ts:116, 0782a9dc6363)

Likely related people:

• RomneyDa: Authored the canonical cleanup issue and the merged lazy-runtime foundation/core/channel batches that this final provider/utility PR builds on. (role: cleanup series owner and recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 66731b504bcc, 5458e316f363, 5fa20826553c; files: src/shared/lazy-runtime.ts, src/shared/lazy-promise.ts, extensions/canvas/index.ts)
• Peter Steinberger: git log -S createLazyRuntimeSurface traces the earlier shared lazy runtime helper API and plugin exposure work to these commits. (role: earlier helper area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 9648e7fecb28, 795f1f438b1d, 39a8dab0da60; files: src/shared/lazy-runtime.ts, src/plugin-sdk/lazy-runtime.ts)
• fuller-stack-dev: Live PR history shows the Codex hosted web-search provider path touched by this lazy-loader migration was introduced in the merged Codex hosted search PR. (role: Codex hosted search feature owner; confidence: medium; commits: 3f61d155e19b, cf835455ecd0, 1e0062b44a51; files: extensions/codex/src/web-search-provider.ts, extensions/codex/src/web-search-provider.runtime.ts, extensions/codex/src/app-server/client-factory.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.