---
name: openclaw-release-validation
description: Safely copy an existing gateway, upgrade it to an OpenClaw beta, and guide human release testing with one Markdown worksheet.
user-invocable: true
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# OpenClaw Release Validation

Help a human validate one beta against a copy of a real gateway. Automate only
fixture setup and reporting. Let the human drive OpenClaw and judge quality.

Use one editable Markdown worksheet as the entire run record. Do not create
`run.json`, mission state, receipts, or other tracking files.

## Start the run

At the start of every **Validate release** run, give a concise introduction:
this skill creates an isolated copy of a gateway, upgrades that copy to the
selected beta, reports upgrade problems, then helps the tester manually check
the release and submit one consolidated feedback comment. The source gateway is
not modified.

Use the agent's available native checklist or plan tool to show progress and
check items off as they complete. Start with this visible checklist:

1. Confirm the beta and shared campaign
2. Choose a gateway to copy
3. Copy, upgrade, and verify readiness
4. Create the testing worksheet
5. Test surfaces and record feedback
6. Finish validation and publish feedback

For **Initialize campaign**, instead explain that the run creates the shared
issue and worksheet for a beta, then ends; use a corresponding three-item
checklist: identify beta, create or reuse campaign, close older campaigns.

## Workflows

Choose the workflow from the request:

- **Initialize campaign** is the asynchronous release-process path. Create or
  reuse the canonical issue for the exact candidate, close older open campaign
  issues, print the current issue URL, and stop.
- **Validate release** is the default human-testing path. Join the existing
  candidate issue, copy and upgrade a gateway, then guide testing. This workflow
  never creates or rewrites the canonical issue.

Before the upgrade reaches a terminal ready or blocked result, keep tester-facing
output to the campaign issue, candidate identity, gateway choice, and upgrade
progress or errors. The worksheet, priority surfaces, testing instructions, and
`finish validation` phrase are disclosed only after that gate.

## 1. Candidate and shared issue

Use an explicit beta when supplied. Otherwise run
`gh api 'repos/openclaw/openclaw/releases?per_page=100'` once, then select the
newest published tag matching
`vYYYY.M.D-beta.N` locally. Do not paginate release history. If that bounded
response has no matching beta, ask for an explicit version rather than making a
slow unbounded request. Record the selected version and commit.

When the request supplies an issue URL or number, resolve it directly with
`gh issue view`. Accept it only when it is open and its body contains the exact
`<!-- openclaw-release-validation:<tag> -->` marker. This direct verification is
authoritative: do not run a subsequent search or let a search result override it.

When no issue is supplied, enumerate open repository issues through `gh api`
and inspect their bodies locally for the exact marker. Ignore pull requests and
closed issues. Do not use GitHub full-text search for this lookup: hidden HTML
comments are not reliably indexed. Fail clearly if more than one open issue has
the marker.

Whenever the workflow reaches its issue announcement, use this exact shape with
one raw URL and no commentary about discovery or campaign counts:

```text
Issue: https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/issues/<number>
```

In **Validate release**, fail with `Release validation has not been initialized
for <tag>.` when the issue is absent. When it exists, announce it once in the
format above, then read its body and use the worksheet between
`<!-- validation-worksheet:start -->` and
`<!-- validation-worksheet:end -->`. Keep its release priorities and template
unchanged. Those exact bytes are the canonical campaign template for this run.

In **Initialize campaign**, first ensure the repository has a
`release-validation` label. Check for the exact label with
`gh label list --search release-validation --json name --jq
'any(.[]; .name == "release-validation")'`; create it only when that exact-name
check returns `false` with `gh label create release-validation --color 0E8A16 --description
"OpenClaw release-validation campaign"`. Do not use `--force` or alter an
existing label. Apply `release-validation` with `gh issue edit <number>
--add-label release-validation` to the canonical issue whether it is reused or
newly created, then verify the label through `gh issue view <number> --json
labels`. This makes active campaigns discoverable with `gh issue list --state
open --label release-validation` while the exact hidden marker remains the
canonical matching rule.

Reuse the current issue's body unchanged when it already exists. When it does
not exist, generate it:

1. Read the GitHub release notes for the exact tag. If they are empty or
   incomplete, also read that tag's section of `CHANGELOG.md`.
2. Fetch the live scorecard Markdown from
   `https://docs.openclaw.ai/maturity/scorecard.md`. From its **All surfaces**
   table, extract each unique surface's display name, taxonomy link, M-level,
   and maturity label. Also extract the score bands. Treat this live response as
   the complete catalog; do not use a cached or hardcoded surface list. Resolve
   relative taxonomy links against `https://docs.openclaw.ai` before publishing.
   Stop before issue creation when the scorecard is unavailable or cannot be
   parsed.
3. Read the complete release notes and group every user-visible or
   upgrade-sensitive item under one or more live scorecard surfaces. Use linked
   PR or commit metadata privately when it helps estimate change size, but never
   publish cherry-picked examples.
4. Rank exactly five priority surfaces using all of: change count and breadth,
   change size and complexity, upgrade sensitivity, scope of user impact, and
   maturity expectations. A touched Stable or Clawesome surface carries more
   regression risk than an equally changed early-stage surface because users
   rely on its stronger quality promise. Keep the ranking qualitative; do not
   expose a fake-precision score.
5. Generate one section for every live scorecard surface. Put the five selected
   surfaces under **Priority surfaces to test** and all remaining surfaces under
   **Other surfaces to test**. Format every section exactly like this:

   ```md
   ### [surface](taxonomy-url)

   | **Maturity score**      | <maturity-label>      |
   | ----------------------- | --------------------- |
   | **What changed**        | <release-theme>       |
   | **Recommended testing** | <exercise-or-em-dash> |
   | **Testing notes**       |                       |
   ```

   Keep the **Testing notes** value cell truly empty: add no placeholder text or
   hidden comment.
   Use `No notable changes in this release.` and an em dash in the last two
   table rows when no release item is relevant. Escape table pipes and keep each
   cell concise. Every priority surface must have a real recommended exercise.

   Make every **Recommended testing** cell a bounded operator workflow: name the
   exact action, the observable pass condition, and a runnable OCM-scoped command
   or concrete URL when the surface has one. Use `<br>` inside a cell when a
   command and pass condition need separation. Use the literal `{{TEST_ENV}}`
   in generated OCM commands: for example, `ocm @{{TEST_ENV}} -- onboard`,
   `ocm @{{TEST_ENV}} -- tui`, and `ocm @{{TEST_ENV}} -- channels status
--probe`. The validator replaces this token with the actual disposable
   environment name only in each tester's local worksheet. Avoid broad prompts
   that bundle unrelated features or say only to "use," "exercise," or "verify"
   a surface.

   For each **What changed**, synthesize the dominant themes across the
   surface's complete group instead of listing a few fixes. Do not include
   issue, PR, commit, or workflow examples; a handful of links misrepresents the
   full release surface. Each **Recommended testing** is one concise human-driven
   exercise.

6. Resolve the campaign creator's GitHub login with `gh api user`; ask for a
   login only when authentication cannot identify it. Enumerate every PR authored
   by that login whose merge commit is included between the previous release tag
   and the candidate tag. Add the complete linked list under **Your changes in
   this release**, or `- None in this release.` when empty. This explicit author
   list is separate from surface summaries and may contain PR links.
7. Make a working copy of the worksheet asset and fill it with the exact
   candidate identity, release-notes URL, live scorecard and taxonomy URLs,
   score-band guidance, and generated surface sections. The issue callout must
   say that its catalog and labels come from the live maturity taxonomy and that
   priority reflects release change volume, size, impact, upgrade risk, and
   maturity expectations. Remove the campaign-creator comment and ensure no
   template placeholder remains except `{{TEST_ENV}}` inside OCM commands.
8. Create the issue with the stable marker, a short participation note, the
   `release-validation` label, and the completed worksheet verbatim between the
   worksheet markers. Read it back and require the marker contents to equal the
   rendered worksheet before treating campaign initialization as complete.
   Re-query open issues for the marker after creation and fail on duplicates.

After the current issue exists, find open campaign issues whose marker names a
release published before the current candidate. Comment on each with the current
issue URL, then close it as completed. Never close the current issue or a campaign
for a later release. Re-query and require the current candidate to be the only
open campaign. Announce its URL once in the exact format above and end the
initializer workflow without waiting for testing.

Only **Initialize campaign** performs release-note analysis or generates the
canonical template. Validation runs consume the issue body without rewriting
it, but replace **Your changes in this release** in their private worksheet with
the current tester's complete authored-PR list for the same tag range. The
bundled worksheet asset is initializer-only; a validation run never reads it.

## 2. Choose and copy a real gateway

First run `ocm --version`. If OCM is unavailable, pause before discovering or
copying any gateway and say:

```text
OCM is required to create an isolated, disposable copy of your gateway for
this release test and is not installed.

Would you like me to install OCM now? This installs the OpenClaw Manager CLI
on this machine. Reply exactly `install OCM` to approve, or install it yourself
and reply `OCM installed`.
```

Install OCM only after the tester explicitly replies `install OCM`. Use the
official release installer, then verify `ocm --version` before continuing:

```sh
curl -fsSL https://github.com/openclaw/ocm/releases/latest/download/install.sh | bash
ocm --version
```

If the binary was installed to `~/.local/bin` but that directory is not on the
current PATH, use `~/.local/bin/ocm` for this run and tell the tester to add it
to their PATH for future shells. If installation or verification fails, report
the exact error and remain paused. Do not replace OCM with a manual state copy.

Discover once with `ocm env list --json`. In parallel, inspect the plain home
with `ocm adopt inspect ~/.openclaw --json` and obtain its version and service
state with `openclaw --version` and `openclaw gateway status --json --no-probe`.
Read only the version and running/stopped state from the latter; do not expose
its command, paths, configuration, or environment. If the plain home's resolved
path is an OCM environment's `stateDir`, show it once as that environment's
personal-state alias. Otherwise show `Personal ~/.openclaw` with its known
version and running state. Keep the overview shallow: do not inspect plugins
or other gateway internals. Ask which gateway the tester wants to copy. Never
silently select or modify the personal gateway.

After selection, inspect only that gateway and record its version and commit.
Preview the disposable target, then import its `.openclaw` state with OCM so
sessions and other real user state are preserved in the fixture:

```sh
ocm adopt plan --name <test-env> <selected-state-dir> --json
ocm adopt import --name <test-env> <selected-state-dir> --json
```

Use the `stateDir` returned by `ocm env list --json` for an OCM environment and
`~/.openclaw` for the plain gateway. Let OCM create the stopped, disposable
environment and assign a non-conflicting port; do not make an additional staged
copy. OCM copies a configured repo-backed or symlinked workspace into the
disposable environment and rewrites the fixture config to that copy; it never
changes the source repository or workspace. The returned environment name is
the test environment; use that actual name in every tester-facing command
rather than the `<test-env>` placeholder. If OCM cannot isolate a config include
or source path, pause and report that setup blocker conversationally—never make
a manual state copy or put it in the campaign worksheet. Keep the source
unchanged. Before activating copied channel credentials, stop the current
credential owner and restore it when validation ends. For an OCM source, use
`ocm service stop <source-env>`; for the plain source, use `openclaw gateway
stop`. There is no `ocm stop` command.

## 3. Upgrade and report errors

Install the exact candidate runtime and use the runtime name returned by OCM:

```sh
ocm runtime install --version <tag-without-v> --json
ocm runtime verify <runtime-name> --json
ocm upgrade <test-env> --runtime <runtime-name> --dry-run --json
ocm upgrade <test-env> --runtime <runtime-name> --json
ocm start <test-env> --runtime <runtime-name> --json
```

Stop any current owner of copied channel credentials immediately before the
`ocm start` command.

Verify `ocm service status <test-env>`, `ocm @<test-env> -- --version`, and
`ocm logs <test-env> --tail 100`. OCM's successful managed upgrade already
requires HTTP health and gateway reachability.

Report every error to the tester immediately, including errors recovered by a
retry. Retain candidate OpenClaw behavior caused by the upgrade for **Upgrade
findings** after the worksheet is created; it is eligible for the GitHub
comment. Keep OCM, copying, local tooling, setup, and cleanup problems in the
conversation only; they never enter the worksheet or GitHub comment.

Complete this step only when candidate readiness is either verified or blocked
with a concrete terminal finding. Do not continue to testing while the upgrade
or gateway readiness is unresolved.

## 4. Create and reveal the worksheet

Only after the upgrade gate above, copy the canonical worksheet between the
shared issue's markers byte-for-byte to
`.artifacts/openclaw-release-validation/<tag>-<timestamp>.md`. Fill in the
source, shared issue URL, terminal upgrade result, and eligible upgrade findings
without changing the campaign priorities. Refresh **Your changes in this
release** for the current tester.

Preserve every other heading, table, callout, surface order, maturity score,
release theme, and recommended test exactly as copied. The only validation-run
edits are the source fields, **Your changes in this release**, **Upgrade
findings**, **Upgrade result**, non-empty **Testing notes** cells, and **Final
feedback**, plus replacing every `{{TEST_ENV}}` token (and legacy
`<test-env>` token) in local command guidance with the actual disposable
environment name. Never regenerate, reformat, or substitute the campaign
template, and never write this local substitution back to GitHub.

Resolve the worksheet's absolute path and open it yourself with the appropriate
platform command: `open '<absolute-path>'` on macOS, `xdg-open
'<absolute-path>'` on Linux, or `start "" "<absolute-path>"` on Windows. If
opening fails, report the error and continue. After opening it, print only:

```text
Testing worksheet: /absolute/path/to/worksheet.md
```

Then give this compact orientation, using the actual worksheet contents:

- **What it is:** their private run record and the source for the final
  release-feedback comment; it is not another task to complete.
- **Priority and scorecard:** the five priority surfaces are the most important
  release checks; their maturity score and label come from the live OpenClaw
  maturity scorecard, where higher maturity carries a stronger regression
  expectation. The remaining surfaces are optional coverage.
- **How to use each surface:** **What changed** summarizes the release theme,
  and **Recommended testing** gives a concrete manual exercise and pass
  condition.
- **How to leave feedback:** as they test, they should simply tell the agent
  their notes and name the surface (for example, `Models: switching persisted
after restart`). The agent adds those notes to that surface's **Testing
  notes** cell. They do not need to edit the file themselves.

Finish with the exit instruction: **You can stop after any amount of testing;
you do not need to cover every surface. When you are ready to wrap up, reply
exactly `finish validation`.** That tells the agent to collect any missing
promotion feedback, stop the disposable fixture, restore any source gateway it
stopped, and post one consolidated release-feedback comment. Then ask which
surface they want to test first.

This worksheet is the only checklist and note store. If readiness is verified,
continue to human-driven testing. If readiness is blocked, state that testing
cannot begin and wait for final feedback or `finish validation`.

## 5. Human-driven testing

Ask: **What do you want to test first?** Recommend starting with a release
priority, but let the tester choose one surface at a time in any order. After
each item, add their notes to that surface's **Testing notes** table cell, then
ask what they want to test next.

The tester drives interactive surfaces such as the TUI, Control UI, onboarding,
channels, pairing, and approvals. Provide the command or URL and explain what
to look for, then wait for their result. Take control only when explicitly
asked. Do not turn the checklist into an automated scenario runner.

A surface counts as tested only when tester-authored text appears in its
**Testing notes** row. The **Maturity score**, **What changed**, and
**Recommended testing** rows are campaign guidance, never test evidence. An
empty Testing notes value means untouched. Escape table pipes and use `<br>`
between multiple notes. Add candidate problems found during surface testing to
that cell.

## 6. Finish and publish

When the tester says `finish validation`:

1. Read the worksheet and ask only for a missing promotion vote or final
   feedback.
2. Stop the copied gateway and restore any source gateway stopped for channel
   ownership. Ask before destroying the disposable environment.
3. Synthesize one final release-analysis comment from candidate identity, source
   version/commit, upgrade findings, tester feedback, the yes/no promotion vote,
   and only the surfaces with non-empty Testing notes cells. Use those cells as
   the source of observed results; do not report the other table rows as evidence.
4. Remove local paths, gateway names, secrets, user identifiers, raw logs, OCM
   notes, setup details, and cleanup details from the comment.
5. Read and apply the [structured report contract](references/structured-report.md).
   Append its hidden v1 payload to the visible Markdown, validate it, then create
   or update this GitHub user's one report comment for the release. Show the
   tester the resulting comment URL.
6. Give the tester this concise copy-ready Discord summary, populated only from
   the same release-facing worksheet evidence and final comment:

   ```md
   **Release validation — <tag>**
   Tested: <surfaces with non-empty Testing notes, or "No manual surface testing completed">
   Key findings: <concise release findings, or "None reported">
   Recommendation: <yes / no>
   Details: <GitHub comment URL>
   ```

   Keep it to these five lines. Exclude source gateway details, local paths,
   OCM/setup information, cleanup, credentials, and untested surface guidance.
   This is a copy/paste handoff for the tester; do not post it automatically.

The skill collects release feedback; it does not make the go/no-go decision.
