feat(sandbox): label worker-owned containers

[jesse-merhi]

Supervisors can set CLAWSCAN_SANDBOX_RUN_ID to identify Docker containers belonging to a terminated scan and clean them up without touching unrelated work. Each container gets the supplied run ID and a random command ID; ordinary runs retain their existing docker run --rm behavior. Cleanup remains the supervisor’s responsibility.

The implementation validates run IDs, does not implicitly forward the ID into the container environment, and documents the ownership contract. The nearby duplicate mount-comparison helper now uses Go’s equivalent slices.Equal.

Contributor proof: the same real worker deadline left one container before this change and zero afterward; an unrelated container survived. Regression tests cover ordinary runs, invalid IDs, unique command IDs, and environment isolation.

Validation on Go 1.27.1/Linux: go test -count=1 ./..., go vet ./..., make docs-site, and the built-in static scanner CLI smoke test all passed on AWS Crabbox. Independent Codex review is clean through P2. GitHub checks must pass on the exact PR head before merge.

[clawsweeper]

🦞👀
ClawSweeper picked this up.

Pull request received. I will update this pull request when review starts.

ClawSweeper review in progress

ClawSweeper is reviewing this revision. This supersedes any previous blocked status.

View the workflow run.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed September 22, 2026, 1:55 AM ET / 05:55 UTC (Revision 11).

ClawSweeper review

What this changes

Adds optional Docker container labels so supervising workers can identify containers belonging to a scan, with CLI help, documentation, and focused tests.

Merge readiness

✅ Ready for maintainer review

Keep open: the capability is absent from current main and the latest release, and no blocking defect was found. The previous draft-state blocker is resolved.

Priority: P2
Reviewed head: 41d779ab8da2a78669a162285279c675de8b34f9

Review scores

Measure	Result	What it means
Overall readiness	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	A focused implementation with relevant real-worker observations, targeted tests, and no remaining actionable findings.
Proof confidence	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	Sufficient (live_output): The captured body reports the real worker exercising the changed Docker runner at this head: cancellation left zero scan containers, Docker events confirmed destruction, and an unrelated container survived. No stored application-data contract changes.
Patch quality	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	No actionable review findings were identified.

Verification

Check	Result	Evidence
Real behavior	Verified	Sufficient (live_output): The captured body reports the real worker exercising the changed Docker runner at this head: cancellation left zero scan containers, Docker events confirmed destruction, and an unrelated container survived. No stored application-data contract changes.
Evidence reviewed	8 items	Introduced scope and ownership: The pinned merge-base-to-head diff contains 80 additions across five files: 18 production/help lines, 52 test lines, and 10 documentation lines. It adds labels without introducing container deletion, scanner adapters, dependencies, or workflow changes. Current-main necessity: Current main's Docker runner still constructs docker run --rm without run or command labels. A tree-wide search found no equivalent ownership-label implementation. Release check: The supplied v0.1.8 release revision also uses unlabeled docker run --rm. GitHub confirms v0.1.8 was published September 10, 2026; the requested capability is not established in that release.
Findings	None	None.
Security	None	None.

How this fits together

ClawScan runs command-backed scanners and judges through a shared Docker runner. The new labels connect those containers to a supervising worker's scan run; the worker remains responsible for cleanup after cancellation.

flowchart TD
  A[Supervising worker] --> B[ClawScan process]
  B --> C[Docker command runner]
  C --> D{Run ID supplied?}
  D -->|Yes| E[Validate ID and attach labels]
  D -->|No| F[Ordinary Docker container]
  E --> G[Labeled Docker container]
  G --> H[Worker selects and cleans up]
  A --> H

Loading

Before merge

None.

Agent review details

Security

None.

Review metrics

Metric	Value	Why it matters
Production and test growth	Production/help +18, tests +52, docs +10; no deletions	The small production addition is justified by worker-specific container identification and has focused coverage.

Technical review

Best possible solution:

Keep container identification opt-in and generic, with cancellation cleanup owned by the supervising worker.

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

Not applicable as a feature request; source confirms existing containers lack ownership labels, and the body reports a real before/after worker-cancellation run.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: adding labels at the shared Docker runner is a narrow solution that supports scanners and judges while preserving existing execution and cleanup behavior.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning medium; reviewed against ca811e0e73ce.

Labels

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a bounded operational improvement for supervisors that cancel Docker-backed scans.
• 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 (live_output): The captured body reports the real worker exercising the changed Docker runner at this head: cancellation left zero scan containers, Docker events confirmed destruction, and an unrelated container survived. No stored application-data contract changes.
• proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The captured body reports the real worker exercising the changed Docker runner at this head: cancellation left zero scan containers, Docker events confirmed destruction, and an unrelated container survived. No stored application-data contract changes.

Evidence

What I checked:

• Introduced scope and ownership: The pinned merge-base-to-head diff contains 80 additions across five files: 18 production/help lines, 52 test lines, and 10 documentation lines. It adds labels without introducing container deletion, scanner adapters, dependencies, or workflow changes. (internal/runner/sandbox.go:209, 41d779ab8da2)
• Current-main necessity: Current main's Docker runner still constructs docker run --rm without run or command labels. A tree-wide search found no equivalent ownership-label implementation. (internal/runner/sandbox.go:199, ca811e0e73ce)
• Release check: The supplied v0.1.8 release revision also uses unlabeled docker run --rm. GitHub confirms v0.1.8 was published September 10, 2026; the requested capability is not established in that release. (internal/runner/sandbox.go:199, 6190d96d7fc4)
• Production behavior proof: The fully supplied PR body at captured sourceRevision ecf4bc12e81685b72f0495a24b26d154c868b9cd43d0971a121f2dc04e58bdc9 reports the actual ClawHub worker exercising a custom scanner with a three-second deadline: one container remained before, zero after at the reviewed head, completion took 3.61 seconds, Docker events showed destruction, and an unrelated container survived. This directly exercises the labels' intended consumer; the observations are contributor-reported, not independently rerun. (41d779ab8da2)
• Compatibility and security boundary: Labels are opt-in, validated before Docker execution, and passed as separate arguments. Existing mount permissions, environment allowlisting, timeout handling, and --rm behavior remain intact. The patch neither grants Docker access nor performs cleanup; the documented supervisor already owns that operation. Tests cover ordinary runs, invalid IDs, unique command IDs, and absence of automatic run-ID environment passthrough. (internal/runner/sandbox_test.go:8, 41d779ab8da2)
• Review continuity: The previous completed review examined this exact head, reported no findings, and requested ready-for-review status. The supplied timeline records that transition at 2026-09-22T05:51:31Z. The earlier Endor-preflight finding no longer applies because the current introduced diff contains no Endor adapter. (41d779ab8da2)

Likely related people:

• unknown: The claimed source-line change could not be verified from bounded local history. (role: source history unknown; confidence: low)
• Patrick-Erichsen: Suggested for follow-up; no historical authorship or introduction is verified. (role: unverified routing candidate; confidence: low)

Rating scale

Score	Internal tier	Crab rank	Meaning
6/6	S	🦀 challenger crab	Exceptional readiness
5/6	A	🦞 diamond lobster	Very strong readiness
4/6	B	🐚 platinum hermit	Good normal PR; ordinary maintainer review
3/6	C	🦐 gold shrimp	Useful, but confidence is limited
2/6	D	🦪 silver shellfish	Proof or implementation needs work
1/6	F	🧂 unranked krab	Not merge-ready
N/A	NA	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Rating does not apply

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality.
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.

Workflow

• 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.

History

Review history (10 earlier review cycles; latest 8 shown)

• reviewed 2026-09-16T06:56:45.680Z sha 8da3f95 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: none
• reviewed 2026-09-21T06:12:58.020Z sha 3026ed5 :: needs changes before merge. :: none
• reviewed 2026-09-21T06:19:47.835Z sha 3026ed5 :: needs maintainer review before merge. :: none
• reviewed 2026-09-22T04:12:27.507Z sha e694188 :: needs maintainer review before merge. :: none
• reviewed 2026-09-22T04:26:56.854Z sha e694188 :: needs maintainer review before merge. :: none
• reviewed 2026-09-22T04:33:09.506Z sha e694188 :: blocked before merge. :: none
• reviewed 2026-09-22T05:41:41.430Z sha 41d779a :: needs maintainer review before merge. :: none
• reviewed 2026-09-22T05:47:10.225Z sha 41d779a :: needs changes before merge. :: none

[jesse-merhi]

/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 exact_review_queue).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

Re-review progress:

• State: Complete
• Detail: The durable review result and its route handoff completed.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/35063298114
• Updated: 2026-09-16T06:21:14.154Z

[jesse-merhi]

/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 exact_review_queue).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

Re-review progress:

• State: Complete
• Detail: A newer review tuple already exists; this stale result was superseded.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/35567787974
• Updated: 2026-09-21T06:17:23.180Z

[jesse-merhi]

/clawsweeper re-review

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[clawsweeper]

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event exact_review_queue).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

[jesse-merhi]

/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 exact_review_queue).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

[clawsweeper]

🦞👀
Exact review queued.

Re-review progress:

• State: Complete
• Detail: The durable review result and its route handoff completed.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/35687011933
• Updated: 2026-09-22T04:28:44.843Z

[jesse-merhi]

/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 exact_review_queue).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

Re-review progress:

• State: Complete
• Detail: The durable review result and its route handoff completed.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/35691787696
• Updated: 2026-09-22T05:43:15.622Z

[jesse-merhi]

/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 exact_review_queue).
Result: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

Re-review progress:

• State: Complete
• Detail: The durable review result and its route handoff completed.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/35692155835
• Updated: 2026-09-22T05:51:54.879Z