Best possible solution:

Keep this maintainer-labeled PR open for maintainer review and completed broad CI; the reviewed source paths do not need a ClawSweeper repair PR.

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

Not applicable: this is a maintainer refactor PR rather than a bug report; the source-shape duplication is tracked by the linked maintainer issue.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: using the existing SDK lazy-runtime helper is the narrow canonical cleanup path, and the sampled retry/reset behaviors are preserved.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 3ad465d32b3b.

Label changes:

• add P3: The PR is an internal maintainability cleanup with no intended user-visible behavior change or reported production regression.
• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• remove rating: 🦐 gold shrimp: Current PR rating is rating: 🐚 platinum hermit, so this older rating label is no longer current.

Label justifications:

• P3: The PR is an internal maintainability cleanup with no intended user-visible behavior change or reported production regression.
• 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: Not applicable for this maintainer-labeled internal refactor; no external contributor real-behavior proof gate applies.

PR surface:

Source -283. Total -283 across 45 files.

What I checked:

• Repository policy applied: Root, extensions, and plugin-sdk AGENTS.md were read; the scoped extension policy expects bundled plugin production code to use openclaw/plugin-sdk/*, which matches the new lazy-runtime imports. (extensions/AGENTS.md:23, b47fe7a4b313)
• Shared helper contract: createLazyRuntimeModule delegates to createLazyRuntimeSurface, which caches runtime import rejections and exposes peek/clear on the loader function. (src/shared/lazy-runtime.ts:16, b47fe7a4b313)
• Special retry behavior preserved: At the PR head, Matrix native crypto loading still clears the cached loader on rejection before rethrowing, preserving the prior retry-on-failure behavior. (extensions/matrix/src/matrix/sdk/crypto-facade.ts:75, ae5c4a7b4016)
• Approval reset behavior preserved: iMessage, Signal, and WhatsApp approval reset hooks now call the shared loader's clear() instead of assigning the old promise variable to undefined. (extensions/imessage/src/approval-reactions.ts:637, ae5c4a7b4016)
• Changed slice cleanup proof: A fixed-string search over the 45 PR-changed files at the PR head found no remaining ??= import( occurrences, and git diff --check returned cleanly. (ae5c4a7b4016)
• Live PR state: Live GitHub shows the PR is open, mergeable, labeled maintainer, and tied to the canonical lazy memoizer tracker; current status rollup still had broad CI shards in progress with mergeStateStatus UNSTABLE. (ae5c4a7b4016)

Likely related people:

• RomneyDa: Authored the canonical tracker, the shared lazy-runtime helper history visible in this checkout, and this remaining-channel consolidation PR. (role: recent feature owner; confidence: high; commits: 6432808ad297, ae5c4a7b4016; files: src/shared/lazy-runtime.ts, src/plugin-sdk/lazy-runtime.ts, extensions/matrix/src/matrix/sdk/crypto-facade.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.