Skip to content

RFC 0009 addendum: Feed observability and usage telemetry#24

Merged
giodl73-repo merged 1 commit into
openclaw:mainfrom
giodl73-repo:feeds-telemetry-addendum
Jun 29, 2026
Merged

RFC 0009 addendum: Feed observability and usage telemetry#24
giodl73-repo merged 1 commit into
openclaw:mainfrom
giodl73-repo:feeds-telemetry-addendum

Conversation

@giodl73-repo

@giodl73-repo giodl73-repo commented Jun 23, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Follow-up addendum to RFC 0009 covering feed observability and usage telemetry.

This keeps the telemetry discussion inside the hosted feeds RFC instead of creating a separate RFC. It clarifies that OpenClaw can reuse the existing diagnostics and OpenTelemetry pipeline, but feed measurement will not happen automatically unless clients preserve feed provenance from fetch through install and activation.

What changed

  • Adds a Feed telemetry and observability addendum section to RFC 0009.
  • Explains the current measurement model: diagnostics events, diagnostics bundles, diagnostics-otel, and plugin install records already exist, but they do not currently preserve feed id or revision attribution.
  • Proposes feed provenance on feed-backed install records.
  • Calls out lifecycle events for fetch, snapshot load, entry action, update, policy decision, and activation.
  • Adds the telemetry work to the RFC 0009 rollout plan and unresolved questions.

Related implementation

  • openclaw/openclaw#96194 is the first implementation slice after the hosted marketplace feed stack. It adds opt-in diagnostics timeline telemetry for the explicit hosted marketplace commands, openclaw plugins marketplace refresh and openclaw plugins marketplace entries, with bounded feed provenance and fallback fields. It intentionally avoids raw feed URLs, query strings, credentials, bearer tokens, feed bodies, package lists, and raw fallback errors.

Validation

  • git diff --check
  • checked no em dashes in RFC 0009

@clawsweeper

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 23, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed June 28, 2026, 7:06 PM ET / 23:06 UTC.

Summary
The branch adds a feed telemetry and observability addendum to RFC 0009, updates the rollout plan, and adds one unresolved telemetry question.

Reproducibility: not applicable. This PR changes an RFC design document, not a current behavior bug. The high-confidence checks are the PR diff, current RFC 0009 on main, README lifecycle guidance, and the linked implementation state.

Review metrics: 1 noteworthy metric.

  • RFC Diff Surface: 1 file changed; 56 added, 3 deleted. The patch is Markdown-only, so review should focus on RFC direction, privacy posture, and proof rather than runtime behavior.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🧂 unranked krab
Proof: 🧂 unranked krab
Patch quality: 🐚 platinum hermit
Result: blocked until real behavior proof is added.

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality, so missing proof can cap an otherwise strong patch.

Rank-up moves:

  • [P1] Add a rendered RFC screenshot, copied terminal output, or linked validation artifact with private details redacted.
  • [P1] Get maintainer acceptance or narrowing of the telemetry and privacy direction before merge.

Proof guidance:

  • [P1] Needs real behavior proof before merge: No after-change rendered RFC screenshot, copied command output, or linked artifact is present; the contributor should add redacted proof before merge. 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.

Risk before merge

  • [P1] The PR still lacks after-change real behavior proof such as a rendered RFC screenshot, copied terminal output, or linked validation artifact.
  • [P1] Merging would set broader RFC direction for feed provenance, diagnostics lifecycle events, telemetry mappings, reporting, and privacy exclusions; the merged related implementation covers only a narrower first opt-in CLI diagnostics slice.

Maintainer options:

  1. Accept Or Narrow The Addendum (recommended)
    A maintainer should decide whether the proposed provenance fields, diagnostic lifecycle events, and privacy exclusions belong in RFC 0009 as written or should be narrowed before merge.
  2. Keep As Draft Discussion
    If the broader telemetry model is not settled, leave the PR open as the focused discussion artifact rather than landing the addendum now.

Next step before merge

  • [P1] Maintainers need to decide the telemetry/privacy RFC direction and the contributor needs to add proof; there is no narrow automated code repair to queue.

Security
Cleared: The diff is Markdown RFC text only and introduces no executable code, dependency, workflow, credential handling, or supply-chain execution path.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Keep the PR open until maintainers accept or narrow the telemetry/privacy addendum, then land it with redacted rendered-document or command-output proof.

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

Not applicable: this PR changes an RFC design document, not a current behavior bug. The high-confidence checks are the PR diff, current RFC 0009 on main, README lifecycle guidance, and the linked implementation state.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear as merge-ready: RFC 0009 is a reasonable home for hosted-feed telemetry guidance, but maintainers still need to accept or narrow the broader telemetry and privacy direction before it becomes repository direction.

AGENTS.md: not found in the target repository.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 89cf322325b0.

Label changes

Label justifications:

  • P3: This is a low-risk RFC documentation update with no runtime code change, but it still needs normal maintainer review before merge.
  • merge-risk: 🚨 other: The concrete merge risk is RFC telemetry and privacy direction drift rather than compatibility, delivery, session, auth, security-boundary, availability, or automation breakage.
  • 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: No after-change rendered RFC screenshot, copied command output, or linked artifact is present; the contributor should add redacted proof before merge. 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.
Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

Likely related people:

  • giodl73-repo: Git blame and log tie current RFC 0009 and earlier feeds RFC revisions to Gio, and this PR is a follow-up to that same hosted-feeds surface. (role: prior feed RFC contributor; confidence: high; commits: 89cf322325b0, 1cd9e911af24, 5c6170bdb35d; files: rfcs/0009-hosted-feeds-for-plugins-and-skills.md, rfcs/0006-feeds.md)
  • vincentkoc: The merged RFC 0009 commit records Vincent as co-author, the parent PR includes Vincent's catalog source trust commit, and Vincent merged the related marketplace feed telemetry implementation. (role: prior feed RFC co-author and related implementation merger; confidence: medium; commits: 89cf322325b0, 439910943d1c, 9c5ee4676d07; files: rfcs/0009-hosted-feeds-for-plugins-and-skills.md)
  • Patrick-Erichsen: Patrick reviewed the parent hosted-feeds RFC and deleted the previous feeds RFC before the rewrite landed, making him relevant to follow-up feed direction review. (role: reviewer and recent area contributor; confidence: medium; commits: e7555fdda445; files: rfcs/0006-feeds.md, rfcs/0009-hosted-feeds-for-plugins-and-skills.md)
  • kevinlin-openai: Blame ties the lifecycle guidance used to assess merge readiness for this RFC addendum to Kevin's README process update. (role: RFC process contributor; confidence: high; commits: e366ea9825a4; files: README.md, rfcs/0000-template.md)
What the crustacean ranks mean
  • 🦀 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.

How this review workflow works
  • 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.

@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot added rating: 🦐 gold shrimp Decent PR readiness signal, but merge confidence is limited. status: ⏳ waiting on author ClawSweeper has contributor-facing work open and is waiting for author action. P3 Low-risk cleanup, docs, polish, ergonomics, or speculative feature. merge-risk: 🚨 other 🚨 Merging this PR has meaningful risk outside the owned taxonomy. rating: 🧂 unranked krab Not merge-ready due to missing proof or serious correctness/safety concerns. status: 📣 needs proof The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. and removed rating: 🦐 gold shrimp Decent PR readiness signal, but merge confidence is limited. status: ⏳ waiting on author ClawSweeper has contributor-facing work open and is waiting for author action. labels Jun 23, 2026
@giodl73-repo
giodl73-repo force-pushed the feeds-telemetry-addendum branch from c11eca7 to 31f12cd Compare June 23, 2026 01:53
@giodl73-repo
giodl73-repo force-pushed the feeds-telemetry-addendum branch from 31f12cd to b877bbb Compare June 23, 2026 01:53
@giodl73-repo giodl73-repo changed the title RFC: Feed observability and usage telemetry addendum RFC 0009 addendum: Feed observability and usage telemetry Jun 23, 2026
@giodl73-repo giodl73-repo mentioned this pull request Jun 23, 2026
Merged
This was referenced Jun 24, 2026
Open
Merged
@giodl73-repo

giodl73-repo commented Jun 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Maintainer acceptance for this RFC addendum: accepting the feed observability/provenance direction as the next documented boundary for RFC 0009. The related implementation remains narrower (#96194), and the broader provenance/install-record/activation attribution work stays follow-up implementation.

Validation proof on current PR head b877bbb3af85634516504a21bd27a6f9fbbdb47b:

> git diff --check origin/main...tmp/feeds-telemetry-addendum -- rfcs/0009-hosted-feeds-for-plugins-and-skills.md
(no output)

> rg -n "—|–" rfcs\0009-hosted-feeds-for-plugins-and-skills.md
(no matches)

@giodl73-repo
giodl73-repo merged commit a8844eb into openclaw:main Jun 29, 2026
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

merge-risk: 🚨 other 🚨 Merging this PR has meaningful risk outside the owned taxonomy. P3 Low-risk cleanup, docs, polish, ergonomics, or speculative feature. rating: 🧂 unranked krab Not merge-ready due to missing proof or serious correctness/safety concerns. status: 📣 needs proof The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@giodl73-repo