fix: tighten cluster intake dashboard layout

[RomneyDa]

Summary

• Keep the Cluster Intake section in the left dashboard column directly below Active Pipeline on wide screens.
• Preserve narrow-screen ordering by rendering a mobile Cluster Intake target after the right rail while hiding the desktop target.
• Render cluster telemetry into all visible cluster targets and remove the brittle raw HTML order assertion.

Verification

• Local dashboard visual check at 1600px: Cluster Intake starts immediately after Active Pipeline in the left column.
• Local dashboard visual check at 900px: visual order is Active Pipeline, right rail, Cluster Intake.
• pnpm run build:dashboard && node --test test/dashboard-worker.test.ts
• pnpm run check

[RomneyDa]

@clawsweeper review

[clawsweeper]

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: the existing ClawSweeper review comment will be edited in place when the review finishes.

Re-review progress:

• State: Complete
• Detail: The targeted re-review finished, the durable review comment was updated, and the synced verdict was routed.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/26429810094
• Updated: 2026-05-26T03:11:11.434Z

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed May 26, 2026, 10:25 AM ET / 14:25 UTC.

Summary
The PR wraps Active Pipeline and the desktop Cluster Intake section in a shared left dashboard column, adds a separate mobile Cluster Intake target, renders telemetry into all cluster targets, and removes the raw HTML order assertion.

Reproducibility: yes. by source inspection: current main places Cluster Intake as a separate top-level grid sibling after the right rail, while the PR creates distinct desktop and mobile targets. I did not run a browser visual reproduction in this read-only review.

Review metrics: 1 noteworthy metric.

• Changed surface: 2 files, +31/-14. The patch is confined to dashboard worker markup/styles/rendering and one dashboard test assertion.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🐚 platinum hermit
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🐚 platinum hermit
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:

• none

Mantis proof suggestion
A short browser visual proof would directly show the responsive dashboard ordering that the patch changes. A maintainer can ask Mantis to capture proof by posting a new PR comment that starts with the OpenClaw Mantis account mention, followed by:

visual task: verify the ClawSweeper dashboard shows Cluster Intake directly below Active Pipeline at 1600px and after the right rail around 900px.

Risk before merge

• I did not independently render the dashboard or rerun pnpm run check in this read-only review; the PR body reports local visual checks at 1600px and 900px plus build/check validation.

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Land the focused dashboard layout change after normal maintainer review and required checks if maintainers agree with the visual ordering.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge
No repair lane is needed because source review found no actionable PR defect; this should continue through normal maintainer review and checks.

Security
Cleared: The diff only changes dashboard HTML/CSS/rendering and a test assertion; it does not touch dependencies, workflows, secrets, permissions, or code execution supply-chain paths.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land the focused dashboard layout change after normal maintainer review and required checks if maintainers agree with the visual ordering.

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

Yes, by source inspection: current main places Cluster Intake as a separate top-level grid sibling after the right rail, while the PR creates distinct desktop and mobile targets. I did not run a browser visual reproduction in this read-only review.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, the proposed structure is a narrow maintainable fix for the desired responsive ordering: desktop renders Cluster Intake under Active Pipeline, while mobile keeps it after the right rail and renders telemetry into the visible target.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against 73e9f8dbc7a0.

Label changes

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk dashboard layout and test cleanup with limited blast radius.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: The external-contributor proof gate does not apply to this repository-member PR; the body still reports local dashboard visual checks and build/check validation.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Repository policy applied: AGENTS.md was read fully; it says review lane is proposal-only and maintainer-authored or protected-label items are non-closeable, which applies because the GitHub context lists the author association as MEMBER. (AGENTS.md:25, 73e9f8dbc7a0)
• Current main layout: Current main still renders Cluster Intake as a top-level split sibling after the right rail with a single id="cluster-repair", so the requested desktop/mobile target split is not already implemented on main. (dashboard/worker.ts:4014, 73e9f8dbc7a0)
• PR diff scope: The PR head changes only dashboard markup/CSS/renderer logic and deletes one brittle order assertion from the dashboard worker test. (dashboard/worker.ts:3844, 2c19284d8b29)
• Feature history: Blame shows Dallin Romney introduced the current Cluster Intake renderer and layout hooks in the recent cluster-intake dashboard work, with adjacent dashboard structure dating to Tak Hoffman and Peter Steinberger commits. (dashboard/worker.ts:4161, 50ca51d85c23)
• Checkout cleanliness: Final status check produced no output, so the read-only review left the checkout clean.

Likely related people:

• Dallin Romney: Introduced the Cluster Intake dashboard surface and recently updated its marker rendering; also appears in current main history for the affected files. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 50ca51d85c23, 9fc28bd49593, 73e9f8dbc7a0; files: dashboard/worker.ts, test/dashboard-worker.test.ts)
• Tak Hoffman: Blame on the dashboard HTML/CSS scaffold and renderer helpers points to the base dashboard structure used by this layout change. (role: surrounding dashboard layout contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 3f1affe587c6; files: dashboard/worker.ts)
• Peter Steinberger: Recent dashboard commits restored emoji labels and touched adjacent dashboard behavior, making this a plausible review route for UI consistency. (role: recent adjacent dashboard contributor; confidence: medium; commits: bbeb4a76967a, 6eed37e5bfc8; files: dashboard/worker.ts, test/dashboard-worker.test.ts)

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.

[clawsweeper]

ClawSweeper PR egg

✨ Hatched: 🥚 common Mossy Signal Puff

Hatch command

Comment @clawsweeper hatch when this PR is hatchable.

Hatchability rules:

• Merged PRs are hatchable.
• Open PRs are hatchable when they are status: 👀 ready for maintainer look, status: 🚀 automerge armed, or labeled clawsweeper:automerge.
• Closed unmerged PRs are hatchable only when one of those hatchable labels is still present in the durable record.

Rarity: 🥚 common.
Trait: watches the merge queue.
Image traits: location status garden; accessory shell-shaped keyboard; palette charcoal, cyan, and signal green; mood watchful; pose holding its accessory up for inspection; shell soft velvet shell; lighting warm desk-lamp glow; background small green status lights.
Share on X: post this hatch
Copy: My PR egg hatched a 🥚 common Mossy Signal Puff in ClawSweeper.

What is this egg doing here?

• Eggs appear after the PR passes real-behavior proof. It is here for vibes, not verdicts: it does not change labels, ratings, merge decisions, or automation.
• The shell reacts to review momentum: open follow-up work warms it up, re-review makes it wobble, and a clean final review lets it hatch.
• Hatchability usually comes from sufficient real-behavior proof, no blocking P0/P1/P2 findings, no security attention needed, and clean correctness. A merged PR is already final, so merge makes the egg hatchable independently.
• The hatch is seeded from this repository and PR number, so the same PR keeps the same creature; the reviewed head SHA can only change safe visual details.
• Rarity is just collectible sparkle: 🥚 common, 🌱 uncommon, 💎 rare, ✨ glimmer, and 🌈 legendary.

[RomneyDa]

@clawsweeper re-review

[clawsweeper]

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: the existing ClawSweeper review comment will be edited in place when the review finishes.

Re-review progress:

• State: Complete
• Detail: The targeted re-review finished, the durable review comment was updated, and the synced verdict was routed.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/26454045194
• Updated: 2026-05-26T14:25:36.468Z