[codex] Update OpenClaw plugin for SDK 2026.6.5

[omarshahine]

Summary

• update OpenClaw plugin metadata and package configuration for OpenClaw SDK 2026.6.5
• declare direct plugin dependencies where OpenClaw no longer provides transitive runtime packages
• keep local source entrypoints while ensuring published packages include compiled runtime output

Validation

• ran plugin builds across the OpenClaw plugin inventory
• ran @openclaw/plugin-inspector@latest inspect --openclaw /Users/omarshahine/GitHub/openclaw/openclaw --no-runtime across the 16-plugin inventory with no live P0/P1 issues
• ran npm pack --dry-run checks for published packages to confirm compiled runtime files are included
• verified Trakt as both an unbuilt local linked plugin and a tarball install to confirm source and packaged runtime behavior

[greptile-apps]

Greptile Summary

This PR updates the findmy-cli OpenClaw plugin to target SDK 2026.6.5, migrating platform/binary/permission metadata from openclaw.plugin.json into package.json's openclaw.environment block, bumping the openclaw peer dependency, and tightening the Node.js engines floor to >=22.19.0.

• openclaw.plugin.json: Removed platforms, requires.binaries, and requires.osPermissions — these fields are redundant with the already-present openclaw.environment and hostTargets entries in package.json under the 2026.6.5 schema.
• package.json: Bumped openclaw to ^2026.6.5, added a prepack lifecycle hook so dist/ is always built before packaging, and removed --dts from the build script (consistent with disabling declaration emit in tsconfig.json); the tsup build target is still node20 while the engines floor is now 22.19.0.
• tsconfig.json: declaration flipped to false, aligning with the removal of --dts from tsup; correct for a runtime-only plugin that ships src/ alongside dist/.

Confidence Score: 4/5

Safe to merge — changes are a straightforward SDK version bump with no functional logic changes.

The only changed logic is metadata and configuration: plugin manifest fields migrated to package.json, dependency version bumped, prepack hook added, and declaration emit disabled. The tsup build target vs engines floor mismatch is a minor inconsistency but does not affect runtime correctness.

openclaw/package.json — the build target vs engines floor inconsistency is worth a second look before publishing.

Important Files Changed

Filename	Overview
openclaw/openclaw.plugin.json	Removed SDK 2026.3-era top-level platforms, requires.binaries, and requires.osPermissions fields; migrated to package.json's openclaw.environment and hostTargets per SDK 2026.6.5 schema.
openclaw/package.json	Updated openclaw dependency to 2026.6.5, bumped compat and build metadata, tightened engines to >=22.19.0, added prepack hook, and removed --dts from build; tsup build target (node20) is now inconsistent with the engines floor (22.19.0).
openclaw/tsconfig.json	Disabled TypeScript declaration emit (declaration: false) to align with removal of --dts from the tsup build script; intentional for a runtime-only plugin package.
openclaw/package-lock.json	Lock file regenerated for openclaw 2026.6.5; large reduction in transitive entries as SDK now no longer provides runtime packages transitively.

Flowchart

%%{init: {'theme': 'neutral'}}%%
flowchart TD
    A[openclaw.plugin.json] -->|SDK 2026.6.5 schema| B[Removed: platforms / requires]
    B --> C[Metadata now lives in package.json]

    C --> D[openclaw.environment.binaries\nfindmy, findmy-helper]
    C --> E[openclaw.environment.osPermissions\nmacos:screen-recording]
    C --> F[openclaw.hostTargets\ndarwin-arm64, darwin-x64]

    G[package.json] -->|engines bumped| H[node >=22.19.0\nwas >=18]
    G -->|dependency bumped| I[openclaw ^2026.6.5\nwas ^2026.3.23]
    G -->|scripts updated| J[prepack: npm run build\nbuild: removed --dts]

    K[tsconfig.json] -->|declaration| L[false\nwas true]
    L --> M[No .d.ts output — intentional for runtime-only plugin]

Loading

Prompt To Fix All With AI

Fix the following 1 code review issue. Work through them one at a time, proposing concise fixes.

---

### Issue 1 of 1
openclaw/package.json:81
The `tsup` build target is `node20`, but the `engines` floor was bumped to `>=22.19.0`. Targeting Node 20 tells tsup/esbuild to down-level syntax and avoid APIs introduced after Node 20, while the actual runtime is guaranteed to be Node 22.19.0+. Consider aligning the target to `node22` so the emitted code can take advantage of the guaranteed runtime and the transpilation contract is consistent with what users actually run.

```suggestion
    "build": "tsup src/index.ts --format esm --out-dir dist --clean --target node22",
```

_{Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "Update OpenClaw plugin for SDK 2026.6.5" | Re-trigger Greptile}

[greptile-apps]

The tsup build target is node20, but the engines floor was bumped to >=22.19.0. Targeting Node 20 tells tsup/esbuild to down-level syntax and avoid APIs introduced after Node 20, while the actual runtime is guaranteed to be Node 22.19.0+. Consider aligning the target to node22 so the emitted code can take advantage of the guaranteed runtime and the transpilation contract is consistent with what users actually run.

Suggested change

	"build": "tsup src/index.ts --format esm --out-dir dist --clean --target node20",
	"build": "tsup src/index.ts --format esm --out-dir dist --clean --target node22",

Prompt To Fix With AI

This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: openclaw/package.json
Line: 81

Comment:
The `tsup` build target is `node20`, but the `engines` floor was bumped to `>=22.19.0`. Targeting Node 20 tells tsup/esbuild to down-level syntax and avoid APIs introduced after Node 20, while the actual runtime is guaranteed to be Node 22.19.0+. Consider aligning the target to `node22` so the emitted code can take advantage of the guaranteed runtime and the transpilation contract is consistent with what users actually run.

```suggestion
    "build": "tsup src/index.ts --format esm --out-dir dist --clean --target node22",
```

How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.

Note: If this suggestion doesn't match your team's coding style, reply to this and let me know. I'll remember it for next time!