docs: rebuild Policy Conformance RFC 0003

[giodl73-repo]

What Problem This Solves

The accepted Policy Conformance RFC remained under rfcs/needs_refactoring/ and no longer described the shipped Policy command, evidence, node-command, or repair contracts.

Why This Change Was Made

Moves Policy Conformance back to numbered RFC 0003, rebuilds it in the current repository template, and adds a normative sidecar specification. The update preserves Policy as configuration conformance rather than request-time enforcement while documenting check / compare / watch, scoped strictness, named artifact evidence, Gateway node-command deny posture, fix classification, guarded automatic narrowers, and review-required previews.

User Impact

RFC readers and implementers now have a current, reviewable Policy 1.0 contract in the normal RFC layout. The stale needs_refactoring copy is removed.

Evidence

• Audited current openclaw/openclaw Policy CLI, rule metadata, fix metadata, automatic repairs, review-required repairs, and Gateway node-command checks.
• Confirmed the shipped automatic repair set, workspaceRepairs opt-in, public policy.fixRecommendation JSON shape, and current two preview implementations.
• git diff --check

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed August 14, 2026, 3:49 PM ET / 19:49 UTC.

ClawSweeper review

What this changes

The PR moves Policy Conformance into numbered RFC 0003, adds a normative Policy 1.0 sidecar, and removes the legacy RFC copy.

Merge readiness

⚠️ Ready for maintainer review - 4 items remain

Keep open: current main still has the legacy Policy RFC under needs_refactoring, so the numbered-RFC migration remains useful, but the accepted RFC frontmatter still lacks its required implementation-issue link.

Priority: P2
Reviewed head: 7770a4bfe76af57cb2b5551f5351319cf367aaf0

Review scores

Measure	Result	What it means
Overall readiness	🦐 gold shrimp (3/6)	The documentation migration is coherent, but a required accepted-RFC metadata link remains unresolved.
Proof confidence	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Not applicable: This is an RFC-only documentation change; document and metadata review, rather than runtime proof, is the applicable validation.
Patch quality	🦐 gold shrimp (3/6)	1 actionable review finding remain.

Verification

Check	Result	Evidence
Real behavior	Not applicable	Not applicable: This is an RFC-only documentation change; document and metadata review, rather than runtime proof, is the applicable validation.
Evidence reviewed	4 items	Current main still uses the legacy RFC location: Current main contains the Policy Conformance RFC at the legacy needs_refactoring path and lacks both proposed RFC 0003 files, so the central documentation migration is not already implemented. Accepted-RFC metadata contract: The repository template says an accepted RFC must have an implementation GitHub issue, while the PR's added RFC declares status: accepted with an empty issue: field. Policy RFC provenance: The current Policy RFC's latest substantive update appears to be the exec-approvals evidence update, establishing Gio Della-Libera as a prior owner of this documentation surface.
Findings	1 actionable finding	[P2] Populate the accepted RFC's implementation issue
Security	None	None.

How this fits together

Policy Conformance defines how an operator-authored policy is compared with observed OpenClaw configuration and named evidence. Its findings feed the Policy CLI and Doctor health reporting; this PR documents that contract for implementers and operators.

flowchart LR
  A[Operator policy] --> B[Policy commands]
  B --> C[Configuration evidence]
  C --> D[Policy findings]
  D --> E[Doctor health reporting]
  F[RFC 0003 documentation] --> B

Loading

Before merge

• Add real behavior proof - Not applicable: This is an RFC-only documentation change; document and metadata review, rather than runtime proof, is the applicable validation.
• Populate the accepted RFC's implementation issue (P2) - This remains unresolved from the prior review: the new RFC declares status: accepted but leaves issue: empty. The repository template requires the implementation GitHub issue at acceptance, so link the canonical issue or correct the lifecycle metadata before merging.
• Resolve merge risk (P1) - Merging an accepted RFC with an empty implementation-issue field breaks the repository's RFC-to-implementation handoff and leaves readers without the canonical delivery tracker.
• Complete next step (P2) - The remaining repair is narrow, but selecting the canonical implementation issue requires repository-owner context not present in the RFC tree.

Findings

• [P2] Populate the accepted RFC's implementation issue — rfcs/0003-policy-conformance.md:8

Agent review details

Security

None.

Review metrics

Metric	Value	Why it matters
RFC migration scope	3 files affected; 418 additions, 219 deletions	The PR is a substantial documentation replacement, so its lifecycle metadata must preserve the implementation handoff.

Merge-risk options

Maintainer options:

1. Restore the implementation handoff (recommended)
   Populate the accepted RFC's issue: field with the canonical Policy implementation issue before merge.
2. Pause the migration
   Keep the legacy RFC in place until an implementation issue or an intentional completed lifecycle state can be established.

Technical review

Best possible solution:

Land the numbered RFC and sidecar after linking the canonical Policy implementation issue in the accepted RFC metadata, or correct the lifecycle metadata if no implementation issue exists.

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

Not applicable: this PR changes RFC Markdown only, and the relevant verification is metadata and document-contract review.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

No: the numbered-RFC migration is appropriate, but it must retain the template-required implementation-issue handoff before merge.

Full review comments:

• [P2] Populate the accepted RFC's implementation issue — rfcs/0003-policy-conformance.md:8
  This remains unresolved from the prior review: the new RFC declares status: accepted but leaves issue: empty. The repository template requires the implementation GitHub issue at acceptance, so link the canonical issue or correct the lifecycle metadata before merging.
  Confidence: 0.99

Overall correctness: patch is incorrect
Overall confidence: 0.96

AGENTS.md: not found in the target repository.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against af708f0ddb6f.

Labels

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a normal-priority RFC documentation correction with no runtime outage or security incident.
• merge-risk: 🚨 other: The proposed accepted RFC would omit its required link to the canonical implementation work.
• rating: 🦐 gold shrimp: Overall readiness is 🦐 gold shrimp; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🦐 gold shrimp.
• status: ⏳ waiting on author: ClawSweeper has contributor-facing work open and is waiting for author action. Not applicable: This is an RFC-only documentation change; document and metadata review, rather than runtime proof, is the applicable validation.

Evidence

What I checked:

• Current main still uses the legacy RFC location: Current main contains the Policy Conformance RFC at the legacy needs_refactoring path and lacks both proposed RFC 0003 files, so the central documentation migration is not already implemented. (rfcs/needs_refactoring/policy-conformance.md:12, af708f0ddb6f)
• Accepted-RFC metadata contract: The repository template says an accepted RFC must have an implementation GitHub issue, while the PR's added RFC declares status: accepted with an empty issue: field. (rfcs/0000-template.md:18, 3aa7d727383f)
• Policy RFC provenance: The current Policy RFC's latest substantive update appears to be the exec-approvals evidence update, establishing Gio Della-Libera as a prior owner of this documentation surface. (rfcs/needs_refactoring/policy-conformance.md:1, 0e353436f90b)
• PR scope: The submitted branch adds the numbered RFC and sidecar while deleting the legacy document; all three changed paths are RFC Markdown content. (rfcs/0003-policy-conformance.md:8, 7770a4bfe76a)

Likely related people:

• Gio Della-Libera: Authored the original merged Policy Conformance RFC and its later exec-approvals evidence update. (role: original author and recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 5007f927bbe3, 0e353436f90b; files: rfcs/needs_refactoring/policy-conformance.md)
• Dallin Romney: Authored the current template clarification that defines the numbered RFC and sidecar layout used by this PR. (role: RFC-template convention contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 3aa7d727383f; files: rfcs/0000-template.md)

Rank-up moves

Optional improvements that raise the rating; they are not merge blockers.

• Add the canonical Policy implementation issue to the RFC frontmatter and refresh the PR.

Rating scale

Score	Internal tier	Crab rank	Meaning
6/6	S	🦀 challenger crab	Exceptional readiness
5/6	A	🦞 diamond lobster	Very strong readiness
4/6	B	🐚 platinum hermit	Good normal PR; ordinary maintainer review
3/6	C	🦐 gold shrimp	Useful, but confidence is limited
2/6	D	🦪 silver shellfish	Proof or implementation needs work
1/6	F	🧂 unranked krab	Not merge-ready
N/A	NA	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Rating does not apply

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality.
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.

Workflow

• 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.

History

Review history (55 earlier review cycles; latest 8 shown)

• reviewed 2026-08-09T19:47:32.007Z sha 7770a4b :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P2] Link the accepted RFC to its implementation issue
• reviewed 2026-08-09T22:01:01.364Z sha 7770a4b :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P2] Link the accepted RFC to its implementation issue
• reviewed 2026-08-09T23:10:07.131Z sha 7770a4b :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P2] Populate the accepted RFC's implementation issue
• reviewed 2026-08-11T06:09:10.319Z sha 7770a4b :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P2] Populate the accepted RFC’s implementation issue
• reviewed 2026-08-11T06:13:35.399Z sha 7770a4b :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P2] Link the accepted RFC to its implementation issue
• reviewed 2026-08-11T21:15:33.687Z sha 7770a4b :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P2] Link the accepted RFC to its implementation issue
• reviewed 2026-08-12T01:56:08.013Z sha 7770a4b :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P2] Add the accepted RFC's implementation issue
• reviewed 2026-08-14T16:08:14.566Z sha 7770a4b :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P2] Link the accepted RFC to its implementation issue