test(repair): execute containment worker from isolated cwd

[hxy91819]

Summary

• execute the built containment worker from a temporary isolated working directory
• verify the worker loads through its absolute entry path and returns the expected structured result
• clean up the temporary workspace even when the assertion fails

Why

The regression coverage added in #590 prevents the workflow from returning to a relative worker path, but it checks the workflow text. This adds behavior-level proof that the worker entrypoint can actually load after the child process changes to the isolated work directory. The prior relative invocation would fail this scenario with MODULE_NOT_FOUND.

Impact

Test-only change. Production containment and security boundaries are unchanged.

Validation

• focused containment test: 7 passed
• pnpm run check: passed
  • unit, repair, changed coverage, and full coverage suites: 0 failures
  • environment-dependent namespace/Landlock cases skipped on this host as designed
• autoreview (--mode uncommitted): clean, no actionable findings
• git diff --check
• pnpm run format:check

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed July 15, 2026, 10:58 PM ET / July 16, 2026, 02:58 UTC.

Summary
Adds a behavior-level repair containment test that executes the built worker by absolute path from a temporary isolated working directory and verifies its structured result and cleanup.

Reproducibility: not applicable. as a current bug reproduction: #590 already fixed the production failure, while this PR adds focused behavior-level coverage for that resolved path.

Review metrics: none identified.

Root-cause cluster
Relationship: partial_overlap
Canonical: #590
Summary: The merged pull request is the canonical production fix; this PR is a complementary behavior-level regression test for the same containment entry-path failure.

Members:

• canonical: fix(repair): resolve containment worker before isolation #590 - It merged the production change that resolves the containment worker before switching to the isolated child working directory.

Proposal only: this assessment does not dispatch repair, suppress jobs, mutate sibling items, close, or merge anything.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🦞 diamond lobster
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🦞 diamond lobster
Result: ready for maintainer review.

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

Next step before merge

• [P2] No repair lane action is needed because the patch has no concrete defect and only awaits ordinary maintainer review or merge.

Security
Cleared: The single-file test change introduces no production execution, dependency, workflow-permission, secret-handling, or supply-chain change.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land the narrow behavior-level regression test after ordinary maintainer review so the absolute worker-entry invariant fixed by #590 remains protected.

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

Not applicable as a current bug reproduction: #590 already fixed the production failure, while this PR adds focused behavior-level coverage for that resolved path.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. Executing the built entrypoint from an unrelated temporary working directory is the narrowest direct test of the path-resolution invariant, and the existing workflow-text assertion remains useful for checking the invocation wiring.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 0a17516dd286.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a low-risk, test-only regression-coverage improvement with no production behavior change.
• add rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Overall readiness is 🦞 diamond lobster; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• add 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 because the author association is MEMBER; the behavior test and successful checks provide supplemental validation.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk, test-only regression-coverage improvement with no production behavior change.
• rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Overall readiness is 🦞 diamond lobster; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• 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 because the author association is MEMBER; the behavior test and successful checks provide supplemental validation.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Repository policy: The fully supplied AGENTS.md requires member-authored pull requests to remain open for explicit maintainer judgment, and its test guidance favors adding coverage to the narrowest matching repair test file. (AGENTS.md, 0a17516dd286)
• Focused patch: The branch adds one test to the existing containment test file, uses a temporary directory as the child working directory, invokes the worker through an absolute entry path, asserts the complete result, and removes the directory in a finally block. (test/repair/repair-cluster-worker-containment.test.ts:43, 414f9a866cd4)
• Production-fix provenance: The related merged pull request fix(repair): resolve containment worker before isolation #590 fixed the relative worker-entry failure in production; this PR supplies complementary behavior-level regression coverage rather than duplicating that production change. (.github/workflows/repair-cluster-worker.yml, c17589a56c6f)
• Validation state: All eight hydrated GitHub check runs completed successfully, including pnpm check, CodeQL, both analysis jobs, and the Windows Codex launcher. (414f9a866cd4)
• Scope review: The live PR reports one changed test file with 36 additions and no production, workflow, dependency, permission, or secret-handling changes. (test/repair/repair-cluster-worker-containment.test.ts:43, 414f9a866cd4)

Likely related people:

• hxy91819: They authored the merged absolute-worker-path repair in fix(repair): resolve containment worker before isolation #590 and the corresponding behavior-level test follow-up, giving them the strongest recent history on this exact path. (role: recent containment-path contributor; confidence: high; commits: 9d22203ec0b1, c17589a56c6f; files: .github/workflows/repair-cluster-worker.yml, test/repair/repair-cluster-worker-containment.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 status: review started.

I am starting a fresh review of this pull request: test(repair): execute containment worker from isolated cwd This is item 1/1 in the current shard. Shard 0/1.

This placeholder means the worker is alive and reading the current context. I will edit this same comment with the actual review when the claws are done clicking.

Crustacean status: shell secured, claws on keyboard, evidence pebbles being sorted.

[steipete]

Merged — thanks @hxy91819! Good behavior-level proof to back the workflow-text pin from #590.