Best possible solution:

Land the focused timeout once maintainers accept the 300s default as the intended Codex provider contract, keeping the documented provider-level and Codex-specific overrides.

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

Yes from source: current main invokes Codex exec without timeoutMs, while runCommandArgs only enforces termination when timeoutMs is set. The PR comment also supplies terminal output from a shimmed wedged Codex run timing out after 50ms.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Mostly yes: reusing runCommandArgs timeout handling is the narrow implementation and the PR adds docs plus regression coverage. The remaining decision is whether the hard 300s Codex default is the right compatibility contract.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against ed3d5750ff89.

Label changes:

• add proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The latest PR comment provides copied terminal output from a shimmed wedged Codex exec timing out after the fix, plus the focused regression result and lock-state assertion.
• 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 (terminal): The latest PR comment provides copied terminal output from a shimmed wedged Codex exec timing out after the fix, plus the focused regression result and lock-state assertion.
• remove status: 📣 needs proof: Current PR status label is status: 👀 ready for maintainer look.
• remove rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Current PR rating is rating: 🐚 platinum hermit, so this older rating label is no longer current.

Label justifications:

• P1: A wedged default Codex provider call can block a real clawpatch run and prevent a report from being emitted.
• merge-risk: 🚨 compatibility: The PR introduces a hard Codex exec timeout where existing slow runs previously had no clawpatch-imposed limit.
• 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 (terminal): The latest PR comment provides copied terminal output from a shimmed wedged Codex exec timing out after the fix, plus the focused regression result and lock-state assertion.
• proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The latest PR comment provides copied terminal output from a shimmed wedged Codex exec timing out after the fix, plus the focused regression result and lock-state assertion.

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: AGENTS.md was read in full and applied for the TypeScript CLI, provider/workflow test, docs, and generated-output review expectations. (AGENTS.md:1, ed3d5750ff89)
• Current main has no Codex exec timeout: Current main calls runCommandArgs("codex", ...) without an options object in runCodexJson, so Codex map/review/fix/revalidate calls do not use timeoutMs today. (src/provider.ts:1545, ed3d5750ff89)
• Existing timeout machinery is available: runCommandArgs already accepts timeoutMs, terminates timed children, returns exit 124, and appends a timeout message when timeoutMs is set. (src/exec.ts:72, ed3d5750ff89)
• PR wires Codex into timeout handling: The PR adds CODEX_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT_MS, codexTimeoutMs(), and passes timeoutMs: codexTimeoutMs() into the Codex runCommandArgs call. (src/provider.ts:1547, d4ff0dbc568f)
• PR adds regression coverage: The workflow regression installs a wedged codex shim, sets CLAWPATCH_CODEX_TIMEOUT_MS=50, expects the review to time out, and asserts the feature is error with no remaining lock files. (src/workflow.test.ts:674, d4ff0dbc568f)
• PR documents the new contract: The provider docs now state the Codex 300 second default and the CLAWPATCH_CODEX_TIMEOUT_MS / CLAWPATCH_PROVIDER_TIMEOUT_MS overrides. (docs/providers.md:35, d4ff0dbc568f)

Likely related people:

• Peter Steinberger: git blame points the current Codex provider, exec timeout implementation, and review lock/error handling to the v0.4.0 release commit, and recent main history also touches this area. (role: introduced behavior and recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: cdd58ac59213, ed3d5750ff89, ac2724f; files: src/provider.ts, src/exec.ts, src/app.ts)
• Humberto Farias: git log shows prior Codex exec argument handling work in provider/exec-adjacent code, which is relevant to subprocess invocation behavior. (role: adjacent Codex subprocess contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 59ee4e1; files: src/provider.ts, src/exec.ts)
• Samuel Rodda: git log shows prior work on Codex provider sandbox override behavior near the changed Codex provider surface. (role: adjacent Codex provider contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 09ce939; files: src/provider.ts)

• 🦀 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.

• 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.

• The egg game starts only after the PR passes the real-behavior proof check.
• Before that, no creature or rarity is rolled. The treat waits for real proof.
• This is still just collectible flavor: proof affects review readiness, not creature quality.