fix: detect session store alias deprecations

[Patrick-Erichsen]

Summary

• Detect deprecated loadSessionStore(...) calls made through a runtime session API alias returned from a helper.
• Add a generic regression test for the alias pattern, without referencing any real plugin by name.
• Bump @openclaw/plugin-inspector to 0.3.15 and add changelog notes.

Proof

• CI Check / Node 22 passed on head 3675f9f5eadc372a94d343a637ef9c1a1f2e14e1.
• CI CodeQL / Analyze (actions) passed on head 3675f9f5eadc372a94d343a637ef9c1a1f2e14e1.
• CI CodeQL / Analyze (javascript-typescript) passed on head 3675f9f5eadc372a94d343a637ef9c1a1f2e14e1.
• Local node --test test/inspector.test.js passed before the broader local shell became unreliable: 19 tests, 0 failures.
• Local Node REPL red check before implementation returned no findings for the runtime-session-alias sample.
• Local Node REPL green check after implementation returned sdk-load-session-store @ plugins/example/index.ts:12.
• Exact source check against martian-engineering/lossless-claw@264f63a4adb1d2c2151241afe7354a35e71ce6e2 now emits five sdk-load-session-store findings at src/plugin/index.ts:1487, 1516, 1562, 1773, and 1819.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed June 12, 2026, 6:58 PM ET / 22:58 UTC.

Summary
Review failed before ClawSweeper could summarize the requested change.

Reproducibility: unclear. The review failed before ClawSweeper could establish a reproduction path.

Review metrics: none identified.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Result: rating does not apply to this item.

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

Risk before merge

• [P1] No close action taken because the review did not complete.

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Retry the Codex review after fixing the execution failure.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

• [P1] Review did not complete, so no work-lane recommendation was made.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Retry the Codex review after fixing the execution failure.

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

Unclear. The review failed before ClawSweeper could establish a reproduction path.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear. Retry the review first so ClawSweeper can evaluate the actual issue and fix direction.

AGENTS.md: unclear because the file could not be read completely.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 02bc6739b361.

Label changes

Label justifications:

• rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool: Overall readiness is 🌊 off-meta tidepool; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🌊 off-meta tidepool.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• failure reason: codex execution failed.
• codex failure detail: Codex review failed for this PR with exit 1.
• codex stderr: law@264f63a4adb1d2c2151241afe7354a35e71ce6e2now emits fivesdk-load-session-storefindings atsrc/plugin/index.ts:1487, 1516, 1562, 1773, and 1819`.\n".
• codex stdout: No stdout captured.

Likely related people:

• unknown: Codex failed before it could trace repository history. (role: review did not complete; confidence: low)

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.

[Patrick-Erichsen]

@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: Failed
• Detail: The targeted re-review did not finish cleanly. Check the workflow run for details.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/27447787893
• Updated: 2026-06-12T22:59:07.773Z

[Patrick-Erichsen]

@clawsweeper re-review