Run proof nudges at 5am Central

[Takhoffman]

Summary

• move the proof-nudge scheduled workflow to 0 10 * * *, which is 5:00 AM Central during daylight time
• update the workflow guard test and proof-nudge docs for the new schedule

Validation

• node --test --test-name-pattern "proof nudge workflow" test/clawsweeper.test.ts
• pnpm run format:check

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed June 2, 2026, 11:22 AM ET / 15:22 UTC.

Summary
This PR changes the proof-nudges scheduled GitHub Actions cron from 44 9 * * * to 0 10 * * * and updates the matching docs and guard test.

Reproducibility: not applicable. This PR changes repository automation scheduling rather than reporting a reproducible bug. Source inspection confirms current main still uses the old cron and the PR updates that schedule surface.

Review metrics: 1 noteworthy metric.

• Touched surface: 1 workflow, 1 doc, 1 guard test. The behavioral change is limited to the disabled-by-default proof-nudge schedule and its matching documentation/test assertion.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🧂 unranked krab
Proof: 🧂 unranked krab
Patch quality: 🐚 platinum hermit
Result: blocked until real behavior proof from a real setup is added.

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

Rank-up moves:

• [P1] Add redacted real behavior proof, such as terminal output or a GitHub Actions workflow view/run demonstrating the updated proof-nudge schedule path.
• Clarify in the PR body whether 5:00 AM Central during daylight time, rather than year-round Central time, is the intended schedule.

Proof guidance:

• [P1] Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR body lists tests and format checking only; it needs redacted real workflow or terminal evidence showing the changed schedule behavior before merge. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.

Risk before merge

• [P1] The PR body lists test and format commands but no after-change real behavior proof from a live workflow, terminal output, or GitHub Actions view/run.
• [P1] If maintainers intend 5:00 AM Central year-round, 0 10 * * * only maps to 5:00 AM during daylight time and will be 4:00 AM during Central Standard Time.

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Merge only after the contributor supplies real workflow proof and maintainers confirm that the daylight-time UTC schedule is the intended operational behavior.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

• [P1] The remaining blockers are contributor real-behavior proof and maintainer confirmation of the schedule/DST intent, not a narrow code repair for ClawSweeper to make.

Security
Cleared: The diff only changes the schedule string plus matching docs/test text; it does not change permissions, secrets, action refs, scripts, dependencies, or token handling.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Merge only after the contributor supplies real workflow proof and maintainers confirm that the daylight-time UTC schedule is the intended operational behavior.

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

Not applicable; this PR changes repository automation scheduling rather than reporting a reproducible bug. Source inspection confirms current main still uses the old cron and the PR updates that schedule surface.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes for the stated daylight-time schedule: changing the cron plus docs/test guard is the narrow maintainable path. Maintainers should confirm whether daylight-only 5:00 AM Central is intended before merge.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against b76b104a4cf8.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a low-risk repository automation schedule adjustment with limited blast radius.
• add rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Overall readiness is 🧂 unranked krab; proof is 🧂 unranked krab and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• add status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR body lists tests and format checking only; it needs redacted real workflow or terminal evidence showing the changed schedule behavior before merge. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk repository automation schedule adjustment with limited blast radius.
• rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Overall readiness is 🧂 unranked krab; proof is 🧂 unranked krab and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR body lists tests and format checking only; it needs redacted real workflow or terminal evidence showing the changed schedule behavior before merge. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Current main still uses old schedule: Current main has the proof-nudges scheduled lane at 44 9 * * *, so the requested retime is not already implemented on main. (.github/workflows/proof-nudges.yml:33, b76b104a4cf8)
• Docs and test guard match current old schedule: The current docs and workflow guard test still reference 44 9 * * *; the PR updates the same guarded schedule surface rather than adding a new lane. (test/clawsweeper.test.ts:16087, b76b104a4cf8)
• PR diff is scoped to cron/docs/test: The provided PR context shows three modified files with one-line changes each: the workflow cron, the docs schedule text, and the matching test assertion. (0016ba80a23e)
• Workflow history: git blame ties the existing scheduled workflow cron and matching docs/test guard to the original proof-nudge workflow work in commit 9b08258b9c647947802687d4c9e169ef8e5c38c9. (.github/workflows/proof-nudges.yml:33, 9b08258b9c64)
• Recent proof-nudge area history: Recent merged commits touched the proof-nudge workflow/runtime/test surface, including allowing proof nudges to comment on PRs and keeping proof-nudge comments inert. (b76b104a4cf8)
• Repository policy read: AGENTS.md was read fully; its ClawSweeper automation and workflow-review guidance applies to this workflow schedule change. (AGENTS.md, b76b104a4cf8)

Likely related people:

• brokemac79: git blame shows the proof-nudges workflow schedule, docs, and test guard were introduced with the original proof-nudge workflow commit. (role: introduced behavior; confidence: high; commits: 9b08258b9c64; files: .github/workflows/proof-nudges.yml, docs/proof-nudges.md, test/clawsweeper.test.ts)
• Takhoffman: Recent merged history on current main shows adjacent proof-nudge workflow/runtime/test changes by Tak Hoffman before this PR. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: b76b104a4cf8, 54422d977482; files: .github/workflows/proof-nudges.yml, test/clawsweeper.test.ts, src/clawsweeper.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.