Best possible solution:

Merge the path-only rename so the accepted RFC filename matches its stable release policy subject.

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

Not applicable for a path-only documentation rename. Source inspection confirms current main still exposes the misspelled filename and the PR only corrects that path.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. A 100% rename is the narrowest maintainable fix, and local plus GitHub searches did not identify a dependent reference or safer canonical item.

AGENTS.md: not found in the target repository.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against a8844eb53a2b.

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a low-risk documentation filename cleanup with no runtime behavior change.
• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• add status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: This documentation repository path correction has no runtime behavior to prove.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk documentation filename cleanup with no runtime behavior change.
• 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: This documentation repository path correction has no runtime behavior to prove.

What I checked:

• Current main still has the typo: Current main lists only the misspelled stable release policy filename, so the requested correction is not already implemented. (rfcs/0001-stable-reelease-policy.md, a8844eb53a2b)
• Diff is a pure rename: The PR head reports a 100% rename from the misspelled path to the corrected path with no insertions or deletions. (rfcs/0001-stable-release-policy.md, 6b757656c3f8)
• Content is unchanged: The old main blob and new PR blob have the same object id, confirming the RFC content is byte-for-byte unchanged. (rfcs/0001-stable-release-policy.md, 6b757656c3f8)
• Naming policy supports the correction: README naming guidance says new RFCs should be named <id>-<short-name>.md, and this rename only corrects the short-name spelling. (README.md:46, a8844eb53a2b)
• No local content reference to old path: A repository grep for the old filename, corrected filename, and reelease typo returned no content references that would need updating. (a8844eb53a2b)
• GitHub metadata is clean: GitHub reports the PR open, not draft, mergeable, clean, with one renamed file and no reviews or linked closing issues. (6b757656c3f8)

Likely related people:

• kevinlin-openai: git log --follow and git blame show the stable release policy RFC file was introduced by docs: define monthly stable release policy (#21). (role: feature author; confidence: high; commits: c25ac1bd8769; files: rfcs/0001-stable-reelease-policy.md)

• 🦀 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.