Improve chat voice input readiness UX

[kenehong]

Summary

• Remove the redundant settings gear from the native chat composer action row.
• Keep the voice button visible, but route unready states through clear dialogs:
  • STT off explains that Speech-to-Text must be enabled and a speech model downloaded.
  • STT on with no model explains that voice input requires at least one downloaded speech model.
• Use Open Voice & Audio Settings as the primary dialog action and make it the default/accent button; keep Dismiss as the safe close action.
• Add Voice settings copy clarifying that voice input is not ready until a speech model is downloaded, while keeping the adjacent status text short to avoid overflow at narrow widths or high text scale.
• Notify settings changes immediately when the STT toggle changes so chat state refreshes without restart.
• Avoid connection loading for TTS provider / ElevenLabs detail changes; only actual node capability toggles should reload capabilities.
• Localize the new user-facing strings across existing locales.

XAML / UX review

• ContentDialog button order follows Windows guidance: primary do-it action on the left, safe close action on the right.
• Primary dialog action uses DefaultButton = ContentDialogButton.Primary for the accent treatment.
• New Voice settings copy uses CaptionTextBlockStyle, TextFillColorSecondaryBrush, and TextWrapping="Wrap".
• Kept long explanatory text out of the horizontal model status row to avoid text scaling/localization overflow.

Validation

• ./build.ps1
• dotnet test ./tests/OpenClaw.Shared.Tests/OpenClaw.Shared.Tests.csproj --no-restore — 2051 total / 0 failed
• dotnet test ./tests/OpenClaw.Tray.Tests/OpenClaw.Tray.Tests.csproj --no-restore — 843 total / 0 failed

Note: build validation required stopping the running OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI.exe instance that was locking the output binary.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed May 27, 2026, 6:57 PM ET / 22:57 UTC.

Summary
The branch removes the native chat composer settings gear, adds localized voice-readiness dialogs and Voice settings copy, refreshes STT settings state immediately, and avoids connection notifications for TTS detail edits.

Reproducibility: not applicable. this is a UX improvement PR rather than a bug report with a failing reproduction. The supplied screenshots demonstrate the changed composer row and STT-off dialog behavior.

Review metrics: none identified.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🐚 platinum hermit
Proof: 🐚 platinum hermit ✨ media proof bonus
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

Risk before merge

• I did not run the Windows build or test suites because this was a read-only review; the PR body reports ./build.ps1 plus shared and tray tests passing.

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Land the bounded UX patch once required CI and maintainer checks are satisfied, keeping the existing settings and localization patterns intact.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge
No ClawSweeper repair is indicated; the remaining action is normal maintainer merge and check review.

Security
Cleared: The diff is limited to WinUI UX code, settings notification calls, and resource strings; I found no concrete security or supply-chain concern.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land the bounded UX patch once required CI and maintainer checks are satisfied, keeping the existing settings and localization patterns intact.

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

Not applicable; this is a UX improvement PR rather than a bug report with a failing reproduction. The supplied screenshots demonstrate the changed composer row and STT-off dialog behavior.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes; the PR follows the existing WinUI settings/navigation patterns and keeps the change limited to chat voice readiness UX, resource strings, and settings notification scope. A future shared helper could reduce duplicated dialog code, but I do not see a blocking defect here.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against bf21e7b216aa.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The PR body screenshots show after-fix UI for the composer row and the STT-off voice readiness dialog, which is sufficient real behavior proof for this visible UX change.
• add proof: 📸 screenshot: Contributor real behavior proof includes screenshot evidence. The PR body screenshots show after-fix UI for the composer row and the STT-off voice readiness dialog, which is sufficient real behavior proof for this visible UX change.
• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🐚 platinum hermit and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• add status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Sufficient (screenshot): The PR body screenshots show after-fix UI for the composer row and the STT-off voice readiness dialog, which is sufficient real behavior proof for this visible UX change.
• remove rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Current PR rating is rating: 🐚 platinum hermit, so this older rating label is no longer current.
• remove status: 📣 needs proof: Current PR status label is status: 👀 ready for maintainer look.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk user-facing UX polish PR for voice readiness messaging and chat composer controls.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🐚 platinum hermit and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Sufficient (screenshot): The PR body screenshots show after-fix UI for the composer row and the STT-off voice readiness dialog, which is sufficient real behavior proof for this visible UX change.
• proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The PR body screenshots show after-fix UI for the composer row and the STT-off voice readiness dialog, which is sufficient real behavior proof for this visible UX change.
• proof: 📸 screenshot: Contributor real behavior proof includes screenshot evidence. The PR body screenshots show after-fix UI for the composer row and the STT-off voice readiness dialog, which is sufficient real behavior proof for this visible UX change.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: AGENTS.md was read fully; it requires build and test validation after changes, but this review is read-only, so I treated the PR body's validation claims as supporting evidence rather than running commands. (AGENTS.md:1, bf21e7b216aa)
• Current main still has the old composer settings action: Current main still constructs and renders settingsBtn in OpenClawComposer, so the composer-row cleanup is not already implemented on main. (src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Chat/OpenClawComposer.cs:788, bf21e7b216aa)
• Current main still has hard-coded voice-readiness dialog copy: Current main's ChatPage and ChatWindow voice paths still use hard-coded "Voice Model Required" dialog text, confirming the localization/dialog work remains useful. (src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Pages/ChatPage.xaml.cs:677, bf21e7b216aa)
• PR diff scope inspected: The PR diff touches chat UI, voice settings UI, TTS/STT settings notification behavior, and five locale resource files; no unrelated infrastructure or dependency changes were present. (3c7933157e5a)
• Real behavior proof inspected: The PR body screenshots show the after-fix composer action row with the voice button visible and no settings gear, plus the STT-off dialog with the primary "Open Voice & Audio Settings" action and "Dismiss" close action. (3c7933157e5a)
• Settings notification impact checked: SettingsChangeClassifier treats node capability toggles, including NodeSttEnabled, as capability reloads and full-JSON-only changes as UI-only, which matches the PR's intent to notify STT changes without forcing TTS detail reconnects. (src/OpenClaw.Connection/SettingsChangeImpact.cs:56, bf21e7b216aa)

Likely related people:

• Christine Yan: git blame shows the current chat voice transcription and model-required dialog paths came primarily from chat voice UI commits cd4acf0 and 488f265. (role: introduced behavior; confidence: high; commits: cd4acf013e38, 488f26509ced; files: src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Pages/ChatPage.xaml.cs, src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Windows/ChatWindow.xaml.cs)
• kenehong: git log shows prior current-main work on the composer layout and related chat UI before this PR, so this contributor is connected to the affected UI path beyond opening the branch. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 8add87d10c54, 2eca2cefa7c3; files: src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Chat/OpenClawComposer.cs, src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Pages/ChatPage.xaml.cs, src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Windows/ChatWindow.xaml.cs)
• bakudies: git log shows recent Voice & Audio page organization, localization, and XAML polish in the settings files that this PR extends. (role: recent adjacent owner; confidence: medium; commits: a55ae075ad40, d4b35d4941c0, 421f14bfc83c; files: src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Pages/VoiceSettingsPage.xaml, src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Pages/VoiceSettingsPage.xaml.cs, src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Strings/en-us/Resources.resw)

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 Frosted Review Wisp

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: stacks clean commits.
Image traits: location branch lighthouse; accessory release bell; palette charcoal, cyan, and signal green; mood sparkly; pose guarding a tiny green check; shell woven fiber shell; lighting subtle sparkle highlights; background soft code-shaped tiles.
Share on X: post this hatch
Copy: My PR egg hatched a 🥚 common Frosted Review Wisp 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.