re-review workflow reports "Complete" but durable verdict marker not refreshed to new head SHA

[solomonneas]

ClawSweeper's @clawsweeper re-review workflow posts a progress block that says State: Complete and "the durable review comment was updated, and the synced verdict was routed", but the durable review comment's verdict marker stays pinned to the SHA from the original review and never refreshes against the current PR head.

Repro

Both observed on openclaw/openclaw#72295.

Run 1

• Re-review requested: 2026-05-12 16:40 UTC (Agents: broaden strict-agentic actionable-prompt and active-narration gates openclaw#72295 (comment))
• Workflow run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/25748589643
• Progress block: State Complete, Updated 2026-05-12T16:48:19.455Z
• PR head at request: 1c826a861ac48a904cdaedd2339a11b798493022
• Durable review marker SHA after run: d2171647e1f54ae9f700b26438f757fd5dd3c916 (unchanged from original 2026-04-28 review)

Run 2 (independent repro 10 days later)

• Re-review requested: 2026-05-22 12:37 UTC (Agents: broaden strict-agentic actionable-prompt and active-narration gates openclaw#72295 (comment))
• Workflow run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/26288252854
• Progress block: State Complete, Updated 2026-05-22T12:45:43.266Z
• PR head at request: 1c826a861ac48a904cdaedd2339a11b798493022
• Durable review marker SHA after run: d2171647e1f54ae9f700b26438f757fd5dd3c916 (still unchanged)

Impact

Labels stay stuck where the original review left them (in this case status: ⏳ waiting on author), even when the author has pushed fixes addressing the original findings. Maintainers filter by these labels, so a stuck waiting on author effectively buries the PR. The author has no signal that the re-review didn't actually happen, since the progress block says it did.

Likely cause

The progress-block update path and the durable-comment edit path appear to be decoupled. The status comment is being updated optimistically before the verdict edit succeeds, or the verdict edit silently no-ops when the new review run produces an identical verdict body, leaving the SHA marker stale.

Suggested signal

Even if the re-review intentionally produces the same verdict text, the SHA marker in the durable comment should be bumped to the re-reviewed head SHA so authors and maintainers can tell the rerun actually happened.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: keeping this open for maintainer follow-up; there is still a little grit to resolve.

Latest ClawSweeper review: 2026-05-22 14:57 UTC / May 22, 2026, 10:57 AM ET.

Workflow note: Future ClawSweeper reviews update this same comment in place.

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.

Summary
Keep open: this is a current ClawSweeper automation bug with source support and concrete run examples; the event re-review status can report success based on step outcomes without proving the durable verdict marker was refreshed before routing labels.

Reproducibility: yes. The issue provides two concrete GitHub run examples, and current source shows the Complete status is based on step success rather than verified durable marker freshness; I did not run a mutating live workflow repro.

Next step
This is a narrow automation repair with clear workflow, publish, and apply-comment-sync surfaces and no product decision needed.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Gate event re-review completion and verdict routing on a verified durable review marker for the reviewed PR head, with a clear non-complete status when sync is skipped, stale, or fails.

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

Yes. The issue provides two concrete GitHub run examples, and current source shows the Complete status is based on step success rather than verified durable marker freshness; I did not run a mutating live workflow repro.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

No, the current path is not the best fix because it routes success optimistically. A narrow repair should add verification or outputs proving the durable marker was updated to the reviewed head before marking Complete and routing labels.

Label changes:

• add P1: The bug affects an active maintainer review workflow and can leave real PRs buried under stale ClawSweeper status labels after authors request re-review.
• add impact:session-state: The issue is about durable review state drifting from the current PR head and keeping stale automation markers/labels active.
• add issue-rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Current issue advisory state selects this label.
• add clawsweeper:source-repro: Current issue advisory state selects this label.
• add clawsweeper:queueable-fix: Current issue advisory state selects this label.
• add clawsweeper:fix-shape-clear: Current issue advisory state selects this label.

Label justifications:

• P1: The bug affects an active maintainer review workflow and can leave real PRs buried under stale ClawSweeper status labels after authors request re-review.
• impact:session-state: The issue is about durable review state drifting from the current PR head and keeping stale automation markers/labels active.

Acceptance criteria:

• pnpm run test:unit
• pnpm run check

What I checked:

• Observed report: The issue gives two exact repository_dispatch re-review runs for Agents: broaden strict-agentic actionable-prompt and active-narration gates openclaw#72295 where the command status said Complete while the durable verdict marker did not advance to the expected PR head SHA.
• Workflow completion gate: The event workflow sets State: Complete when review, publish, and route steps all have success outcomes; it does not check that the apply report actually synced the durable review comment or that the live verdict marker SHA matches the reviewed head. (.github/workflows/sweep.yml:433, 6eed37e5bfc8)
• Publish step counts sync but does not expose it: publishEventResult computes syncedCount from review_comment_synced actions only for the step summary; the workflow status and router do not consume this count as a success condition. (src/repair/publish-event-result.ts:100, 6eed37e5bfc8)
• Durable comment sync can be skipped while the command still succeeds: Apply decides whether a review comment needs syncing from rendered-body, hash, and reference checks, and only records review_comment_synced inside that conditional branch; a successful apply invocation can therefore finish without a fresh durable-comment edit. (src/clawsweeper.ts:11819, 6eed37e5bfc8)
• Documented workflow contract: The README says re-review dispatches a fresh review and command status replies are marker-backed per issue/PR, intent, and head SHA, which makes a stale verdict marker after a Complete status user-visible drift. (README.md:171, 6eed37e5bfc8)
• Repository policy keeps ClawSweeper issues open: The ClawSweeper repository profile has no issue auto-close rules, so even a well-understood automation bug should stay open for maintainer triage or a fix PR. (config/target-repositories.json:16, 6eed37e5bfc8)

Likely related people:

• Tak Hoffman: Git blame shows commit 5733db1 introduced the event workflow completion block, publish-event-result, update-command-status, and the main apply comment-sync logic; later commits f607adc and 237cca7 also touched related comment-sync behavior. (role: introduced event review/status and durable sync path; confidence: high; commits: 5733db19fa6b, f607adc363d9, 237cca734c3b; files: .github/workflows/sweep.yml, src/repair/publish-event-result.ts, src/repair/update-command-status.ts)
• Peter Steinberger: Git blame shows commit 0e1005e recently changed the same apply path around label sync and current-complete report handling that participates in status/label freshness. (role: recent adjacent apply-label contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 0e1005eb0736; files: src/clawsweeper.ts)

Remaining risk / open question:

• The exact stale-marker branch still needs a focused failing test; the robust fix should verify the live durable verdict marker SHA rather than trusting publish-step success alone.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against 6eed37e5bfc8.

[Takhoffman]

@clawsweeper visualize

[clawsweeper]

🦞👀
ClawSweeper visual brief is being prepared.

I queued a read-only visual pass. It will create or update one marker-backed visual brief comment and will not trigger close, merge, repair, label, or branch changes.

Lens: auto

[clawsweeper]

Source: #170 (comment)
Visual model: gpt-5.5, reasoning low.

Visual brief

Lens: state

Advisory only. Maintainers remain the final judges.

Issue: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/issues/170
Subject: re-review says Complete, but durable verdict marker stays on old SHA

Expected re-review state flow

@clawsweeper re-review
        |
        v
current PR head captured
1c826a861ac48a904cdaedd2339a11b798493022
        |
        v
durable review comment updated
marker SHA = 1c826a861ac48a904cdaedd2339a11b798493022  ✅
        |
        v
labels/verdict routed from refreshed review state ✅
        |
        v
progress block may say Complete ✅

Observed state flow

@clawsweeper re-review
        |
        v
current PR head captured
1c826a861ac48a904cdaedd2339a11b798493022
        |
        v
progress block says Complete ✅
"durable review comment was updated"
        |
        v
durable review marker still old SHA ❌
d2171647e1f54ae9f700b26438f757fd5dd3c916
        |
        v
labels can remain tied to stale review state ⚠️
example: status waiting on author

Two repros, same mismatch

+------+------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Run  | Request time UTC | Progress result  | PR head requested | Marker after run |
+------+------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| 1    | 2026-05-12 16:40 | Complete ✅       | 1c826a...3022     | d21716...c916 ❌ |
| 2    | 2026-05-22 12:37 | Complete ✅       | 1c826a...3022     | d21716...c916 ❌ |
+------+------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+

Likely split-brain state

🧠 runtime/progress state
    "workflow complete"
    "comment updated"
           |
           | not proving
           v
💾 durable verdict marker
    still points to original 2026-04-28 review SHA

Legend: ✅ expected/proven working, ❌ broken path, ⚠️ unresolved risk, 🧠 runtime state, 💾 persisted state.

Maintainer judgment points:

🧑‍⚖️ Is "Complete" allowed before the durable verdict marker is proven refreshed?

🧑‍⚖️ If verdict text is identical, should the SHA marker still bump to the
     re-reviewed head SHA as proof the rerun actually happened?

🧑‍⚖️ Should label routing depend on confirmed durable marker freshness rather
     than only progress-step success?

Main operator-visible risk:

Author pushes fixes
        |
        v
re-review appears successful ✅
        |
        v
durable marker remains stale ❌
        |
        v
status label can stay "waiting on author" ⚠️
        |
        v
maintainer queues may bury the PR ⚠️

Maintainer ruling

Benefit:
Risk:
Proof needed:
Recommended next action:
Question presented: