docs(localization): clarify progressive slice delivery by giodl73-repo · Pull Request #49 · openclaw/rfcs

giodl73-repo · 2026-07-24T04:06:36Z

Follows accepted RFC #42.

What this clarifies

22 registered locales: English source plus 21 translation targets.
15 required product surfaces: 315 translation-target cells; 315/315 is the full product target, not today's shipped state.
Each surface owns its copy, catalogs, renderer, workflow, and review policy while reusing shared per-repository gates and evidence contracts.
Ready same-repository PRs targeting the default branch use a blocking drift gate plus a trusted in-place refresh. Fork and cross-repository paths use one post-merge generated PR.

One string, end to end

flowchart TB
  EN["1. Ready English source PR<br/><code>wizard.completion.enable</code>"]
  GATE["2. Credential-free gate fails<br/>zh-CN + zh-TW are stale"]
  ACTION["3. Maintainer runs Localization Catalog Refresh<br/>protected-main tooling • exact PR head"]
  UPDATE["4. Bot commits one translation batch<br/>to the unchanged source branch"]
  CHECK["5. Same PR reruns strict checks + review"]
  MERGE["6. Maintainer merges the complete review unit"]
  SHIP["7. Owner artifact ships"]
  OUTPUT["8. Owner renders<br/>为 openclaw 启用 zsh shell completion？"]
  FORK["Fork / cross-repo<br/>merge English, then one generated follow-up PR"]
  FAIL["Failure or moved head<br/>publish nothing • English fallback stays live"]
  EN --> GATE --> ACTION --> UPDATE --> CHECK --> MERGE --> SHIP --> OUTPUT
  EN -. source branch cannot be updated .-> FORK --> CHECK
  ACTION -. generation, validation, or lease fails .-> FAIL

The workflow executes generator code from protected main; the PR registry and English catalogs are validated data only. It never executes PR scripts, actions, dependencies, or hooks with provider credentials. Before pushing, it rechecks open/ready/same-repository/base/head state and uses an exact-head lease. Automation does not approve or merge its output.

Delivery

Each owner slice enrolls one bounded surface in the shared gate and refresh workflow, or proves its existing owner pipeline conforms. The 47 projected slices remain grouped into 16 delivery packages toward the September 1, 2026 completion decision. Live delivery stays in openclaw#113105.

Core exemplar: openclaw#112784. Surface registration: openclaw#112801.

Review decision

Project direction and progressive owner onboarding were aligned with Patrick and Vince in Discord. Patrick remains the primary implementation-stack reviewer; semantic, security, platform, and publication owners still review their boundaries.

Validation

Exact head: 0e19881be5a456bfcbf29a81bcc87dbcaf471b08

MAIN_RFC words=2076
RFC_LINKS checked=16 broken=0
SLICE_IDS unique=47
MERMAID_BLOCKS recognized=2
DIFF_CHECK clean

AI-assisted: yes. I reviewed the wording and validation evidence.

giodl73-repo · 2026-07-24T13:44:47Z

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-07-24T13:44:49Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

clawsweeper · 2026-07-24T14:02:08Z

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed August 1, 2026, 11:20 AM ET / 15:20 UTC.

ClawSweeper review

What this changes

The branch rewrites RFC 0024 and five localization sidecars to describe progressive 15-surface delivery, a 315-cell completion target, and direct in-place catalog refreshes for ready same-repository pull requests.

Merge readiness

⚠️ Ready for maintainer review - 7 items remain

Keep this PR open for human review: it changes the accepted localization publication boundary from generated pull requests to credentialed automation writing directly to qualifying contributor branches. That is a security and product-policy amendment, not a clarification. Likely related people: giodl73-repo (high-confidence RFC history) and Patrick Erichsen (medium-confidence named implementation-stack reviewer).

Priority: P2
Reviewed head: 0e19881be5a456bfcbf29a81bcc87dbcaf471b08
Owner decision: Required. See Decision needed.

Review scores

Measure	Result	What it means
Overall readiness	🦐 gold shrimp (3/6)	The documentation is structured and internally consistent, but its central workflow-policy change conflicts with the accepted RFC and needs explicit owner approval.
Proof confidence	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Not applicable: This PR changes RFC Markdown only; its supplied link, Mermaid, slice-ID, and diff checks are appropriate documentation validation, but they cannot settle the required owner decision on the workflow boundary.
Patch quality	🦐 gold shrimp (3/6)	Security review found an item that needs attention.

Verification

Check	Result	Evidence
Real behavior	Not applicable	Not applicable: This PR changes RFC Markdown only; its supplied link, Mermaid, slice-ID, and diff checks are appropriate documentation validation, but they cannot settle the required owner decision on the workflow boundary.
Evidence reviewed	6 items	Accepted current-main publication contract: The accepted RFC requires trusted refresh output to be committed to a reviewable automation branch and opened or updated through the generated-pull-request flow; G46 is explicitly the refresh-to-generated-PR lane. Git blame provenance for the accepted contract: The accepted RFC merge commit authored the lines requiring the reviewable automation branch, generated-PR flow, and the restriction that pull requests run only deterministic detection and enforcement. Proposed contract replaces that boundary: The proposed branch says a maintainer-authorized workflow may update the same ready same-repository pull request, with a post-merge generated pull request only when it cannot update the source branch.
Findings	1 actionable finding	[P1] Retain the generated-PR boundary until direct writes are approved
Security	Needs attention	Direct credentialed writes need explicit authority: The proposed workflow updates a same-repository contributor branch with generated translations, replacing the accepted generated-PR boundary. It needs documented token scope, authorization, audit, and rollback approval before becoming normative.

How this fits together

RFC 0024 defines how OpenClaw detects English-source drift, produces translated catalogs, validates them, and lets each product surface render localized text. Its publication workflow is intended to guide later implementation in the OpenClaw repository, where trusted automation and human review control generated catalogs.

flowchart TB
Source[English source pull request] --> Detect[Credential-free drift detection]
Detect --> Decision[Choose trusted refresh path]
Decision --> Generated[Generated translation pull request]
Decision --> InPlace[Proposed direct branch update]
Generated --> Review[Validation and human review]
InPlace --> Review
Review --> Ship[Owner ships catalog]
Ship --> Render[Surface renders localized text]

Decision needed

Question	Recommendation
Should RFC 0024 permit trusted translation automation to commit generated catalogs directly to a ready same-repository contributor branch instead of always publishing a reviewable generated pull request?	Keep generated pull requests: Preserve the accepted generated-pull-request publication boundary and revise this PR to describe direct branch updates only as a future separately approved option.

Why: Current main explicitly chooses the generated-pull-request boundary. Deciding where credentialed automation may write is a trust, review, and product-policy choice that cannot be resolved by documentation edits alone.

Before merge

Add real behavior proof - Not applicable: This PR changes RFC Markdown only; its supplied link, Mermaid, slice-ID, and diff checks are appropriate documentation validation, but they cannot settle the required owner decision on the workflow boundary.
Retain the generated-PR boundary until direct writes are approved (P1) - Current main requires trusted refresh output on a reviewable automation branch through the generated-PR flow. This new primary path lets credentialed automation commit into an existing contributor branch; exact-head checks do not make that trust-boundary change a clarification. Keep the generated-PR path unless the relevant workflow and security owners explicitly approve an RFC amendment with the required authority and audit model.
Resolve security concern: Direct credentialed writes need explicit authority - The proposed workflow updates a same-repository contributor branch with generated translations, replacing the accepted generated-PR boundary. It needs documented token scope, authorization, audit, and rollback approval before becoming normative.
Resolve merge risk (P1) - Merging would make direct writes from credentialed translation automation to a contributor-controlled branch normative before the accepted generated-pull-request boundary has been explicitly amended.
Resolve merge risk (P1) - The linked OpenClaw implementation work is still open in the supplied discussion, so this RFC change could outpace workflow-owner and security-owner approval of token scope, authorization, audit, and rollback behavior.
Complete next step (P2) - A human must decide whether the accepted generated-pull-request contract may be replaced with direct contributor-branch writes; this is not a safe automated repair.

Findings

[P1] Retain the generated-PR boundary until direct writes are approved — rfcs/0024-localization-runtime-and-coverage.md:282-284
[medium] Direct credentialed writes need explicit authority — rfcs/0024-localization-runtime-and-coverage.md:282

Agent review details

Security

Needs attention: The diff is Markdown-only but proposes a security-sensitive change to where credentialed translation automation writes generated artifacts.

Review metrics

Metric	Value	Why it matters
RFC surface	6 Markdown files; 590 added, 1,104 removed	This is a broad rewrite of the accepted RFC and its normative sidecars, not a narrow clarification.
Publication model	1 primary workflow boundary changed	The branch makes same-branch updates primary for qualifying pull requests instead of the accepted generated-pull-request route.

Merge-risk options

Maintainer options:

Restore the accepted publication boundary (recommended)
Revise the PR to retain generated pull requests for trusted refresh output until a separately reviewed RFC amendment approves direct branch writes.
Approve the direct-write model explicitly
Accept in-place refresh only after the relevant workflow and security owners document and approve the branch-write guarantees.
Pause this policy amendment
Defer or close the PR if no owner intends to adopt direct contributor-branch writes in the current localization rollout.

Technical review

Best possible solution:

Keep the accepted generated-pull-request publication model, or land a narrowly approved RFC amendment only after the relevant OpenClaw workflow and security owners document and approve direct-write authorization, token scope, exact-head handling, rollback, and audit evidence.

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

Not applicable: this is a documentation PR proposing a workflow and trust-boundary policy, not a report of broken runtime behavior. Current main clearly documents the conflicting accepted publication path.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

No: presenting direct branch writes as a clarification conflicts with current main’s accepted generated-pull-request contract. The narrow maintainable path is to retain that contract unless owners approve a specific amendment with implementation evidence.

Full review comments:

[P1] Retain the generated-PR boundary until direct writes are approved — rfcs/0024-localization-runtime-and-coverage.md:282-284
Current main requires trusted refresh output on a reviewable automation branch through the generated-PR flow. This new primary path lets credentialed automation commit into an existing contributor branch; exact-head checks do not make that trust-boundary change a clarification. Keep the generated-PR path unless the relevant workflow and security owners explicitly approve an RFC amendment with the required authority and audit model.
Confidence: 0.97

Overall correctness: patch is incorrect
Overall confidence: 0.95

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

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

Labels

Label changes:

add rating: 🦐 gold shrimp: Overall readiness is 🦐 gold shrimp; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🦐 gold shrimp.
remove merge-risk: 🚨 compatibility: Current PR review merge-risk labels are merge-risk: 🚨 security-boundary.
remove rating: 🦪 silver shellfish: Current PR rating is rating: 🦐 gold shrimp, so this older rating label is no longer current.

Label justifications:

P2: The PR is a significant workflow-policy change with limited immediate runtime blast radius but material consequences for later implementation.
merge-risk: 🚨 security-boundary: The proposed wording authorizes credentialed automation to write generated catalogs directly to a contributor-controlled source branch.
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 PR changes RFC Markdown only; its supplied link, Mermaid, slice-ID, and diff checks are appropriate documentation validation, but they cannot settle the required owner decision on the workflow boundary.

Evidence

Security concerns:

[medium] Direct credentialed writes need explicit authority — rfcs/0024-localization-runtime-and-coverage.md:282
The proposed workflow updates a same-repository contributor branch with generated translations, replacing the accepted generated-PR boundary. It needs documented token scope, authorization, audit, and rollback approval before becoming normative.
Confidence: 0.94

What I checked:

Accepted current-main publication contract: The accepted RFC requires trusted refresh output to be committed to a reviewable automation branch and opened or updated through the generated-pull-request flow; G46 is explicitly the refresh-to-generated-PR lane. (rfcs/0024-localization-runtime-and-coverage.md:351, faf2a3a5b1ac)
Git blame provenance for the accepted contract: The accepted RFC merge commit authored the lines requiring the reviewable automation branch, generated-PR flow, and the restriction that pull requests run only deterministic detection and enforcement. (rfcs/0024-localization-runtime-and-coverage.md:361, faf2a3a5b1ac)
Proposed contract replaces that boundary: The proposed branch says a maintainer-authorized workflow may update the same ready same-repository pull request, with a post-merge generated pull request only when it cannot update the source branch. (rfcs/0024-localization-runtime-and-coverage.md:279, 0e19881be5a4)
In-place path was introduced after RFC acceptance: The branch history identifies commits 68fe133, 40391f3, and 0e19881 as the in-place-refresh proposal and subsequent narrowing to the default base; the accepted RFC merged first. (rfcs/0024-localization-runtime-and-coverage.md:282, 68fe13303b3e)
Current-main check: The accepted RFC merge is contained in current main, while this PR head is not; no later current-main commit changes the affected RFC 0024 localization files. (rfcs/0024-localization-runtime-and-coverage.md:361, af708f0ddb6f)
Documentation diff sanity: The proposed six-file Markdown diff has no whitespace errors, but its clean formatting does not resolve the policy conflict. (rfcs/0024-localization-runtime-and-coverage.md:279, 0e19881be5a4)

Likely related people:

giodl73-repo: The accepted RFC merge and all commits on this proposed localization RFC branch are attributed to this contributor in repository history. (role: accepted RFC author and recent localization RFC contributor; confidence: high; commits: faf2a3a5b1ac, 68fe13303b3e, 0e19881be5a4; files: rfcs/0024-localization-runtime-and-coverage.md, rfcs/0024/projected-owner-slice-registry.md, rfcs/0024/implementation-plan.md)
Patrick Erichsen: The accepted RFC and proposed registry identify Patrick as the primary reviewer for the localization implementation stack, which includes this proposed workflow boundary. (role: named implementation-stack reviewer; confidence: medium; files: rfcs/0024-localization-runtime-and-coverage.md, rfcs/0024/projected-owner-slice-registry.md)

Rank-up moves

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

Obtain an explicit workflow and security-owner decision on direct same-branch writes, or restore the accepted generated-pull-request path.
If approved, add a concise normative authority, token-scope, lease, audit, and rollback contract rather than relying on explanatory prose.

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 (8 earlier review cycles)

reviewed 2026-07-24T13:48:30.814Z sha 1c7b742 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P1] Confirm the new slice-completion contract before requiring it
reviewed 2026-07-30T14:19:56.861Z sha 0e19881 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P1] Confirm the new slice-completion contract before requiring it
reviewed 2026-07-30T19:00:30.059Z sha 0e19881 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P1] Confirm the slice-completion contract before requiring it
reviewed 2026-07-30T20:14:37.881Z sha 0e19881 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P1] Confirm the mandatory slice-completion contract
reviewed 2026-07-31T04:05:54.005Z sha 0e19881 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P1] Confirm the mandatory completion contract
reviewed 2026-07-31T13:35:34.723Z sha 0e19881 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P1] Obtain approval before making slice gates mandatory
reviewed 2026-07-31T17:58:00.584Z sha 0e19881 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P1] Keep the generated-PR boundary until in-place refresh is approved
reviewed 2026-07-31T19:47:08.426Z sha 0e19881 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P1] Retain generated-PR refresh until branch writes are approved

giodl73-repo · 2026-07-24T14:12:39Z

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-07-24T14:12:42Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

giodl73-repo · 2026-07-24T14:19:14Z

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-07-24T14:19:16Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

giodl73-repo · 2026-07-24T14:35:21Z

Pre-merge cleanup is complete at exact head 55b382c: the system diagram is now a vertical 1. Own -> 2. Automate -> 3. Ship summary, and the PR body includes after-change link, slice-ID, diff, Mermaid-render, and semantic-review evidence. Patrick remains requested for the explicit mandatory slice-completion decision.

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-07-24T14:35:23Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

giodl73-repo · 2026-07-24T14:46:24Z

The system overview now uses only searchable implementation names from openclaw/openclaw: localization/surfaces.json, localization/catalogs.json, the localization-catalogs CI job, Localization Catalog Refresh, @openclaw/localization-core, and LocalizationContext. RFC planning IDs are absent from the overview and diagram.

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-07-24T14:46:26Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

giodl73-repo · 2026-07-24T15:23:16Z

Added an exact-head, source-accurate end-to-end example at 015c4f8c4debff261db07c775b40bf67f1b09172:

follows the real wizard.completion.enable English message;
shows all three adoption records (owner source, localization/surfaces.json, localization/catalogs.json);
separates source-PR detection from trusted refresh and strict generated-catalog validation;
shows the actual zh-CN catalog value, catalogFamily load, LocalizationContext, parameters, and rendered output; and
states that the checked-in target is human bootstrap-reviewed, so the first credentialed refresh remains a supervised rollout gate.

Validated the values and registry entries directly against openclaw#112784 / #112801. GitHub Markdown recognizes both Mermaid blocks in the RFC and PR body.

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-07-24T15:23:18Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

giodl73-repo · 2026-07-24T15:40:51Z

Simplified at exact head 67bb6466193fd3497eaf27825f9921f9f1f6b40f.

The main RFC is now 1,677 words (down from 7,431) and leads with the real wizard string. Reference-level mechanics remain in the normative sidecars.

The product target is now unambiguous: English source + 21 translation targets across 15 required surfaces = 315 target cells, and only 315/315 is product-complete. A platform constraint may explain a blocker but no longer reduces the completion target to 313.

Validated: clean diff, 6/6 relative links, 47/47 unique slice IDs, both RFC Mermaid blocks recognized, and the example values/registrations asserted against openclaw#112784 and #112801.

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-07-24T15:40:55Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

giodl73-repo · 2026-07-24T15:47:00Z

Sidecar clarity pass at exact head f320b4b65cbc63f8f1c92ad4d2a78fbea74acc7d:

runtime, coverage, and metadata specs now open with a one-screen contract/ownership summary and reflect accepted RFC status;
coverage now enumerates the exact 15 release-row IDs used by the implementation;
release rows are explicitly distinct from finer delivery registries (for example, updater/Doctor contribute to cli, while approval work can contribute to runtime, gateway-errors, and server-rendered-channels);
adding an adapter/package declaration no longer appears to silently expand the fixed 315-cell denominator; and
the main RFC diagram now uses the exact release-row identifiers.

Validated 15/15 row-ID parity against REQUIRED_LOCALIZATION_SURFACES, 13 relative links with no breakage, 47 unique slice IDs, a clean diff, and both Mermaid render targets.

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-07-24T15:47:03Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

giodl73-repo · 2026-07-24T15:55:21Z

Made the exemplar event-specific at exact head 1fc88cb6bbdc577cb59f6d15f6c87b798e6cc3f4 while retaining the 15 product-surface map:

contributor opens an English-only source PR;
credential-free PR checks confirm registration and report exact stale targets;
maintainer merges reviewed English to protected main;
that trusted main push automatically starts the credentialed refresh;
automation opens the generated translation PR with source-pinned evidence;
the generated PR runs strict catalog validation and review; and
after merge, the owner renderer serves the localized string.

This now matches #112784 exactly: PR detection is warning-only for ordinary source drift, generated-path changes run the strict check, and translation/provider/publisher credentials exist only in the trusted post-merge workflow. The implementation plan, coverage state machine, registry, RFC, and PR body use the same description.

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-07-24T15:55:24Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

giodl73-repo · 2026-07-24T16:24:55Z

Applied a seven-lens .craft/roles / FACES review at exact head a6bb5d727543793b03e40ec91c9548017a32aa26:

new-hire: made target versus current shipped state explicit;
power-user + ciso: added generation, validation, and review failure behavior (publish nothing, English remains live, cells stay partial);
platform-eng + founder: clarified that all 15 rows share a control loop without replacing conforming UI/native/docs owner workflows;
gateway-eng + lorant-reviewer: inserted generated-PR merge and owner artifact shipment before runtime rendering.

The panel found no remaining architecture contradiction after these fixes. Main RFC remains under 2,000 words, all 15 product surfaces remain visible, both RFC Mermaid blocks and the PR-body Mermaid block render, and claims remain source-backed by #112784/#112801. This role review does not replace Patrick's current-head decision.

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-07-24T16:25:01Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

Re-review progress:

State: Review in progress
Detail: The exact-review queue leased this run; Codex is reviewing the item.
Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/30551020140
Updated: 2026-07-30T14:18:36.094Z

docs(localization): require progressive slice guidance

0102bca

giodl73-repo requested a review from Patrick-Erichsen July 24, 2026 04:06

docs(localization): clarify slice gates and lifecycle

1c7b742

giodl73-repo changed the title ~~docs(localization): require progressive slice guidance~~ docs(localization): clarify progressive slice delivery Jul 24, 2026

giodl73-repo mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2026

feat(localization): add locale context and message rendering openclaw/openclaw#111541

Open

docs(localization): diagram the owner workflow

e3f2f3b

docs(localization): restructure system diagram

1009948

docs(localization): simplify system diagram

55b382c

docs(localization): name concrete system components

77e8333

docs(localization): simplify RFC around product target

67bb646

docs(localization): clarify sidecar ownership and coverage rows

f320b4b

docs(localization): show automatic translation PR handoff

1fc88cb

docs(localization): apply role review findings

a6bb5d7

giodl73-repo added 3 commits July 24, 2026 10:38

docs(localization): define in-place authoring refresh

68fe133

docs(localization): scope in-place gate to default base

40391f3

docs(localization): start authoring gate at ready state

0e19881

giodl73-repo mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2026

Implement RFC 0024 localization runtime and product coverage openclaw/openclaw#113105

Open

Uh oh!

Conversation

giodl73-repo commented Jul 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

What this clarifies

One string, end to end

Delivery

Review decision

Validation

Uh oh!

giodl73-repo commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

ClawSweeper review

What this changes

Merge readiness

Review scores

Verification

How this fits together

Decision needed

Before merge

Findings

Security

Review metrics

Merge-risk options

Technical review

Labels

Evidence

Rank-up moves

Rating scale

Workflow

History

Uh oh!

giodl73-repo commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

giodl73-repo commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

giodl73-repo commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

giodl73-repo commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

giodl73-repo commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

giodl73-repo commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

giodl73-repo commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

giodl73-repo commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

giodl73-repo commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

giodl73-repo commented Jul 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading