This is the wrong pull request, so please disregard it. ~~docs: disallow squash in landing workflow~~

[hogelog]

I accidentally opened a PR against gog. Please ignore it as noise.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed June 30, 2026, 9:13 AM ET / 13:13 UTC.

Summary
The PR updates AGENTS.md landing-workflow guidance to prefer normal merge commits, allow rebase only when needed, and forbid squash merges.

Reproducibility: not applicable. this is repository workflow documentation, not a reproducible runtime bug.

Review metrics: 1 noteworthy metric.

• Policy files changed: 1 file changed. The only touched file is AGENTS.md, which controls repository agent workflow guidance.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🦐 gold shrimp
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🦐 gold shrimp
Result: ready for maintainer review.

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality, so missing proof can cap an otherwise strong patch.

Rank-up moves:

• Get maintainer confirmation that normal merge commits should replace squash as the default landing guidance.

Risk before merge

• [P1] The PR changes the default landing strategy that agents are instructed to follow, from squash default to never squash, without maintainer confirmation in the visible discussion.

Maintainer options:

1. Confirm the landing policy
   Have a maintainer explicitly confirm the desired merge strategy before changing the workflow instructions agents follow.
2. Keep squash as the default
   If the existing squash-default guidance is intentional, close this PR and leave AGENTS.md unchanged.

Next step before merge

• [P1] A maintainer should decide whether the landing workflow should forbid squash merges before this policy text changes.

Security
Cleared: The patch only edits repository workflow text and does not introduce code execution, dependency, secret, or supply-chain changes.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land this only after maintainers confirm that normal merge commits should be the default landing path and squash merges should be forbidden in AGENTS.md.

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

Not applicable; this is repository workflow documentation, not a reproducible runtime bug.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear; the patch is coherent, but forbidding squash merges is a maintainer workflow decision rather than a self-evident docs correction.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 213ddb60d7d1.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a low-risk workflow documentation change with no runtime product impact.
• add merge-risk: 🚨 automation: AGENTS.md drives agent landing behavior, and the PR changes the default merge strategy those agents are told to use.
• add rating: 🦐 gold shrimp: Overall readiness is 🦐 gold shrimp; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🦐 gold shrimp.
• add status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: This repository-policy documentation change has no runtime behavior to demonstrate.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk workflow documentation change with no runtime product impact.
• merge-risk: 🚨 automation: AGENTS.md drives agent landing behavior, and the PR changes the default merge strategy those agents are told to use.
• rating: 🦐 gold shrimp: Overall readiness is 🦐 gold shrimp; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🦐 gold shrimp.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: This repository-policy documentation change has no runtime behavior to demonstrate.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• PR diff: gh pr diff shows one line changed in AGENTS.md, replacing the existing squash-default landing guidance with normal merge by default, rebase only when needed, and never squash. (AGENTS.md:42, f346010ac607)
• Current policy text: Current main still says landing mode should bring in PRs with squash default; rebase/merge when needed. (AGENTS.md:42, 213ddb60d7d1)
• History: The existing AGENTS.md workflow section was introduced in commit 608aa46, tagged v0.31.1. (AGENTS.md:42, 608aa46e7b9c)
• Discussion: gh pr view shows no maintainer comments or reviews confirming the requested landing-policy change. (f346010ac607)

Likely related people:

• Peter Steinberger: git blame and git log -S tie the existing landing workflow guidance to commit 608aa46, authored by Peter Steinberger and tagged v0.31.1. (role: introduced behavior; confidence: high; commits: 608aa46e7b9c; files: AGENTS.md)

What the crustacean ranks mean

• 🦀 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.

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.