RFC: iMessage Channel Configuration Cleanup

[omarshahine]

Converts the existing imessage-channel-configuration-cleanup.md into a template-compliant RFC.

This RFC was the only one in the repo that predated the template and never got aligned to it. This PR brings it into conformance with rfcs/0000-template.md and the README:

• Renamed to 0004-imessage-channel-configuration-cleanup.md (next sequential id).
• Added YAML frontmatter (title, authors, created, last_updated, rfc_pr).
• Added the # Proposal: <Title> H1.
• Restructured into the canonical sections: Summary / Motivation / Goals / Non-Goals / Proposal / Rationale / Unresolved questions.

No technical content was dropped. The prior "Current Problems" became Motivation subsections; "Proposed Classification", "Migration Plan", "Compatibility Notes", and "Success Criteria" became Proposal subsections; "Open Questions" became "Unresolved questions". A Rationale section (required by the template, previously absent) was written from the existing material — comparing the classify-and-default approach against outright removal, docs-only changes, and immediate default flips.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed May 28, 2026, 9:19 PM ET / 01:19 UTC.

Summary
Renames the iMessage cleanup RFC to the next numbered filename and restructures it with frontmatter, template sections, and a new Rationale section.

Reproducibility: not applicable. this is a Markdown RFC cleanup, not a behavior bug. I verified the need by comparing the README/template expectations with the current main file and the PR diff.

Review metrics: none identified.

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.

Next step before merge

• [P1] No ClawSweeper repair is needed; the PR has no concrete patch defect and should proceed through normal maintainer editorial review.

Security
Cleared: The diff only rewrites a Markdown RFC and does not change executable code, workflows, dependencies, secrets handling, or package metadata.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land the RFC normalization if maintainers agree the editorial Rationale wording accurately preserves the existing proposal; keep runtime iMessage behavior changes for future implementation PRs.

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

Not applicable: this is a Markdown RFC cleanup, not a behavior bug. I verified the need by comparing the README/template expectations with the current main file and the PR diff.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: updating the existing RFC in place to match the repository template is the narrowest maintainable path, and current main does not already contain the numbered template-compliant version.

AGENTS.md: not found in the target repository.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against e46c2a113cc9.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a low-risk Markdown/RFC cleanup with no runtime behavior or compatibility surface changed.
• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• add status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: Markdown-only RFC normalization has no runtime behavior to prove in a real setup.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk Markdown/RFC cleanup with no runtime behavior or compatibility surface changed.
• 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: Markdown-only RFC normalization has no runtime behavior to prove in a real setup.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Target policy check: No AGENTS.md was present inside the target repository checkout, so no repository-authored review policy applied.
• Template metadata and sections: README.md defines RFC frontmatter keys and expected top-level sections including Summary, Motivation, Goals, Non-Goals, Proposal, Rationale, and Unresolved questions. (README.md:75, e46c2a113cc9)
• Current main still has the old shape: The current iMessage RFC on main starts with a plain H1, lacks YAML frontmatter, and keeps non-template sections such as Current Problems, Proposed Classification, Compatibility Notes, and Open Questions. (rfcs/imessage-channel-configuration-cleanup.md:1, e46c2a113cc9)
• PR diff matches the cleanup request: The PR renames the RFC to rfcs/0004-imessage-channel-configuration-cleanup.md, adds the documented frontmatter and Proposal H1, nests the field classification under Proposal, and adds Rationale plus Unresolved questions. (rfcs/0004-imessage-channel-configuration-cleanup.md:1, 4b98ff01752e)
• PR file content inspected: The proposed RFC content contains the new frontmatter, template sections, preserved proposal material, and the added Rationale section in the branch head. (rfcs/0004-imessage-channel-configuration-cleanup.md:1, 4b98ff01752e)
• PR state and comments: The GitHub API shows the PR is open, cleanly mergeable, changes one file, and has no human review comments; the only issue comment is a ClawSweeper status placeholder. (4b98ff01752e)

Likely related people:

• omarshahine: Introduced the iMessage configuration cleanup RFC on current main before this branch, so they are connected to the document beyond merely opening this PR. (role: RFC content owner; confidence: high; commits: 54b2f430a77f; files: rfcs/imessage-channel-configuration-cleanup.md)
• kevinslin: Added the RFC template and README authoring rules, and moved the original iMessage RFC into the rfcs/ directory when the template was introduced. (role: template and repository-structure contributor; confidence: high; commits: f4fdf38f4717, bbb4058da234; files: README.md, rfcs/0000-template.md, rfcs/imessage-channel-configuration-cleanup.md)
• giodl73-repo: Recently aligned merged RFCs to the numbered template format on current main, which is the same cleanup pattern this PR applies to the remaining iMessage RFC. (role: recent adjacent RFC alignment contributor; confidence: medium; commits: e46c2a113cc9; files: rfcs/0002-doctor-health-upgrades.md, rfcs/0003-policy-conformance.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.