docs: propose OpenClaw-owned Rust node runtime

[giodl73-repo]

What problem this solves

Native OpenClaw products need a reusable Rust Gateway client and bounded node
runtime without duplicating OpenClaw protocol, lifecycle, policy, and security
behavior in each product repository.

Decision

OpenClaw owns two unpublished workspace crates:

• openclaw-gateway-client for role-neutral transport and session mechanics;
• openclaw-node-host for the bounded node role, lifecycle, runtime, and
  headless proof host.

TypeScript and the Gateway remain authoritative for protocol, pairing,
approvals, policy, command semantics, and cancellation delivery. Native
products retain credentials, TLS trust, signing, native admission and tools,
packaging, proxy routing, rollout, and support policy.

RFC acceptance does not publish crates, promise stable Rust APIs, ship an
official binary, require a sidecar, or authorize broader system.*, worker,
workspace-transfer, plugin, PTY, MCP, or skills parity.

The maintainer acceptance decision applies to the bounded, already-proven
two-crate incubation contract. It is also the design-only proof override for
the explicitly deferred Gateway connection-control exchange; that future
contract still requires implementation and runtime proof before adoption.

Landed implementation

The bounded foundation has now merged into openclaw/openclaw in dependency
order:

1. #116050 — shared Gateway
   client and bounded host, merged as f9a7f104c22a.
2. #116450 — embeddable
   lifecycle and native ownership hooks, merged as 29069179def6.
3. #116863 — authenticated
   sidecar bridge and separate-process proof, merged as ce4f1d711bbc.

Current follow-ups

• #150329 at
  3083030ee1a makes the bounded TypeScript/Rust lifecycle fixture bilateral
  and adds a permanent path-scoped conformance workflow.
• #150344 at
  a97e9bdba67 isolates reusable native signing, hostname-bound TLS trust,
  admission, request-lifetime, cancellation, and non-starvable keepalive seams.
• Draft macOS adopter
  #149725 at
  f0ada44a58a is now a focused helper, Swift adapter, packaging/signing,
  proxy-safe routing, and native-probe stack on #150344.

These follow-ups strengthen conformance and adoption evidence but do not expand
the bounded RFC decision. The macOS adopter remains draft until its prerequisite
lands and exact-head package, signing, install, upgrade, rollback, TLS, proxy,
lifecycle, saturation, and performance evidence is complete.

Evidence

• The three authoritative OpenClaw implementation PRs passed exact-head focused
  Rust/Tauri proof, strict static gates, and clean independent review before
  landing.
• The final sidecar layer passed 141 stacked Rust tests and 2/2 authenticated
  separate-process proofs.
• #150329 has passed 140 locked Rust tests, 166 focused TypeScript
  contract/registry tests, 639 workflow-guard tests, strict Rust static gates,
  formatting, and its exact-head Node Runtime Conformance workflow.
• #150344 has passed 148 Rust tests, strict static gates, shared iOS/macOS
  Periphery, macOS Swift tests, and iOS smoke.

Architecture sketch

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed September 16, 2026, 11:15 PM ET / September 17, 2026, 03:15 UTC (Revision 61).

ClawSweeper review

What this changes

Adds a Rust node-runtime ownership RFC with companion contracts, adoption gates, draft connection-control fixtures, an architecture diagram, and implementation evidence.

Merge readiness

✅ Ready for maintainer review

Keep open for landing: this distinct RFC is absent from the target default branch. GitHub-verified write access supports the recorded bounded acceptance, resolving the previous maintainer-decision blocker. No actionable patch defect remains.

Priority: P3
Reviewed head: 8e8ff2ded996a8adf69dfffed372c0192850e666

Review scores

Measure	Result	What it means
Overall readiness	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	The detailed, bounded RFC has no remaining actionable finding, with linked foundation proof and an authorized override confined to deferred design.
Proof confidence	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	Override: The write-authorized acceptance comment explicitly overrides proof only for the deferred connection-control design. The linked merged foundation records real WebSocket and authenticated child-process evidence; the override does not approve future connection-control implementation or packaged adoption.
Patch quality	🦞 diamond lobster (5/6)	No actionable review findings were identified.

Verification

Check	Result	Evidence
Real behavior	Overridden	Override: The write-authorized acceptance comment explicitly overrides proof only for the deferred connection-control design. The linked merged foundation records real WebSocket and authenticated child-process evidence; the override does not approve future connection-control implementation or packaged adoption.
Evidence reviewed	9 items	Target scope and necessity: The verified origin is openclaw/rfcs. The pinned default-branch tree does not contain this Rust ownership RFC; all ten introduced files are additions. Merged implementation work in another repository does not replace this decision record. Acceptance authority verified: The acceptance and narrowly scoped design-only proof override appear at #54 (comment). The collaborator-permission endpoint returns permission=write and role_name=write for giodl73-repo, independently resolving the misleadingly weaker CONTRIBUTOR association. The comment retains implementation, native-adoption, and release proof requirements. Bounded acceptance and deferred work: The acceptance section limits the decision to unpublished workspace crates and Tauri reuse. The connection-control specification explicitly says its message family is unimplemented, and the conformance plan requires independent consumers and runtime proof before adoption.
Findings	None	None.
Security	None	None.

How this fits together

The proposed Rust runtime connects native applications to OpenClaw’s Gateway and dispatches authorized node commands. Gateway policy remains authoritative, while embedding products retain credentials, native tools, packaging, and deployment.

flowchart LR
  A[Authorized controllers] --> B[OpenClaw Gateway]
  B --> C[Rust Gateway client]
  C --> D[Bounded node runtime]
  D --> E[Product admission and adapters]
  E --> F[Native tools]
  F --> D
  D --> B

Loading

Before merge

None.

Agent review details

Security

None.

Review metrics

Metric	Value	Why it matters
Documentation scope	10 added files, 2,518 added lines; production code +0	The substantial review surface consists of the RFC, supporting specifications, illustrative fixtures, and diagram rather than executable runtime changes.

Technical review

Best possible solution:

Record the bounded monorepo ownership decision while preserving independent conformance, native-adoption, and supported-release gates.

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

Not applicable: this is a design-record PR, and the previously reported message/frame documentation mismatch is corrected.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: the bounded ownership record matches the landed foundation and explicitly separates unimplemented connection control and product rollout from RFC acceptance.

AGENTS.md: not found in the target repository.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning medium; reviewed against 967d9aac7472.

Labels

Label changes:

• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🐚 platinum hermit and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• remove rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Current PR rating is rating: 🐚 platinum hermit, so this older rating label is no longer current.

Label justifications:

• P3: This records an architectural decision without changing deployed runtime behavior.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🐚 platinum hermit and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Override: The write-authorized acceptance comment explicitly overrides proof only for the deferred connection-control design. The linked merged foundation records real WebSocket and authenticated child-process evidence; the override does not approve future connection-control implementation or packaged adoption.

Evidence

What I checked:

• Target scope and necessity: The verified origin is openclaw/rfcs. The pinned default-branch tree does not contain this Rust ownership RFC; all ten introduced files are additions. Merged implementation work in another repository does not replace this decision record. (README.md:5, 967d9aac7472)
• Acceptance authority verified: The acceptance and narrowly scoped design-only proof override appear at docs: propose OpenClaw-owned Rust node runtime #54 (comment). The collaborator-permission endpoint returns permission=write and role_name=write for giodl73-repo, independently resolving the misleadingly weaker CONTRIBUTOR association. The comment retains implementation, native-adoption, and release proof requirements.
• Bounded acceptance and deferred work: The acceptance section limits the decision to unpublished workspace crates and Tauri reuse. The connection-control specification explicitly says its message family is unimplemented, and the conformance plan requires independent consumers and runtime proof before adoption. (rfcs/0028-openclaw-owned-rust-node-runtime.md:471, 8e8ff2ded996)
• Linked implementation and real transport evidence: GitHub confirms feat(rust): add authenticated node sidecar bridge openclaw#116863 merged on 2026-09-16. Its inspected body records 141 passing Rust tests and two authenticated separate-process proofs at head 833c9293b1729cb2383b409494b82ded70f15572, plus an allowed native effect, local denial without adapter invocation, and retirement suppressing later effects through CommandRuntime and a real WebSocket session. The foundation and lifecycle PRs are also verified merged at feat(rust): add shared gateway client and node host openclaw#116050 and feat(rust): add the embeddable node runtime lifecycle openclaw#116450. (crates/openclaw-node-host/tests/sidecar_process.rs:28, ce4f1d711bbc)
• Prior finding resolved: The earlier document at bb710af combined message and frame limits as 16 MiB. The reviewed head separately documents a 64 MiB message limit and 16 MiB frame limit, resolving the retained prior finding. (rfcs/0028/gateway-client-v1-spec.md:95, 8e8ff2ded996)
• Authoritative dependency contract checked: The RFC explicitly identifies OpenClaw’s Gateway implementation as its compatibility authority. Inspection of the landed client confirms independent 64 MiB message and 16 MiB frame defaults, matching the repaired specification. The node-host manifest also declares publish=false. (crates/openclaw-gateway-client/src/session.rs:36, ce4f1d711bbc)

Likely related people:

• Gio Della-Libera: Raw commit 13819ef adds rfcs/0016-claws.md:16 relative to its recorded parents. This identifies author metadata, not feature responsibility or a PR merger. (role: source-line author; confidence: high; commits: 13819ef73d3a; files: rfcs/0016-claws.md)
• unknown: The claimed source-line change could not be verified from bounded local history. (role: source history unknown; 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 (60 earlier review cycles; latest 8 shown)

• reviewed 2026-09-17T01:58:37.671Z sha bb710af :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P3] Separate the landed message and frame limits
• reviewed 2026-09-17T02:11:16.175Z sha bb710af :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P3] Separate the landed message and frame limits
• reviewed 2026-09-17T02:29:30.660Z sha f8d47e9 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P3] Separate the landed message and frame limits
• reviewed 2026-09-17T02:41:25.990Z sha 1762ac2 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P3] Document the independent message and frame defaults
• reviewed 2026-09-17T02:46:20.095Z sha 49660b0 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: none
• reviewed 2026-09-17T02:54:36.580Z sha 49660b0 :: needs changes before merge. :: none
• reviewed 2026-09-17T03:04:44.731Z sha 8e8ff2d :: needs changes before merge. :: none
• reviewed 2026-09-17T03:10:38.894Z sha 8e8ff2d :: needs maintainer review before merge. :: none

[giodl73-repo]

@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: when the review finishes, ClawSweeper will create the durable review comment if needed or update the existing comment in place.

[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/35166453273
• Updated: 2026-09-17T00:25:10.197Z

[giodl73-repo]

@clawsweeper re-review

The RFC evidence inventory is refreshed to the final follow-up heads:

• chore: gate shared node runtime contracts openclaw#150329 232a5d851d9
• feat(node-host): support native session and policy ownership openclaw#150344 a97e9bdba67
• feat(macos): prototype shared Rust node runtime via sidecar openclaw#149725 291f0fdcdfa

Please review exact RFC head 811510b6c8435825e0c411a6014c50bbb35d055d.

[clawsweeper]

🦞👀
Exact review queued.

Re-review progress:

• State: Review in progress
• Detail: The exact-review queue leased this run; Codex is reviewing the item.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/35172179829
• Updated: 2026-09-17T01:52:38.243Z

[giodl73-repo]

@clawsweeper re-review

The RFC evidence inventory is refreshed to the final follow-up heads:

• chore: gate shared node runtime contracts openclaw#150329 232a5d851d9
• feat(node-host): support native session and policy ownership openclaw#150344 a97e9bdba67
• feat(macos): prototype shared Rust node runtime via sidecar openclaw#149725 291f0fdcdfa

Please review exact RFC head b80bf304c1cf947384164f7059e0a18225ba4fdc.

[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/35172692968
• Updated: 2026-09-17T02:00:42.890Z

[giodl73-repo]

@clawsweeper re-review

The RFC evidence inventory is refreshed to the final follow-up heads:

• chore: gate shared node runtime contracts openclaw#150329 232a5d851d9
• feat(node-host): support native session and policy ownership openclaw#150344 a97e9bdba67
• feat(macos): prototype shared Rust node runtime via sidecar openclaw#149725 291f0fdcdfa

Please review exact RFC head 8cff83d716c5304ff910ae68ead47ce5215823d0.

[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/35173517116
• Updated: 2026-09-17T02:12:44.515Z

[giodl73-repo]

@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/35174686171
• Updated: 2026-09-17T02:30:52.086Z

[giodl73-repo]

@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: Waiting
• Detail: A newer exact-review queue owner superseded this run. This run completed as a no-op.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/35175079054
• Updated: 2026-09-17T02:38:19.903Z

[giodl73-repo]

@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/35175743092
• Updated: 2026-09-17T02:47:43.605Z

[giodl73-repo]

@clawsweeper approve

Maintainer decision: accept the bounded, unpublished two-crate Rust foundation described by this RFC.

This is an explicit design-only proof override for the deferred and currently unimplemented Gateway connection-control exchange. It does not approve that exchange for adoption without runtime proof, publish crates, ship an official binary, authorize broader system.* behavior, or waive the separate native-adoption and release gates.

[clawsweeper]

🦞👀
ClawSweeper picked this up.

Command router queued. I will update this comment with the next step.

[giodl73-repo]

@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/35176291741
• Updated: 2026-09-17T02:56:41.847Z

[giodl73-repo]

@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/35176923618
• Updated: 2026-09-17T03:06:50.074Z

[clawsweeper]

🦞👀
ClawSweeper picked this up.

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

ClawSweeper review complete

ClawSweeper finished reviewing this revision. The review result is being finalized.

View the workflow run.

[giodl73-repo]

@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/35177559511
• Updated: 2026-09-17T03:16:56.653Z

[giodl73-repo]

@steipete RFC #54 is accepted and ready at exact head 8e8ff2ded996a8adf69dfffed372c0192850e666.

ClawSweeper's final review is 5/6 with no findings or remaining pre-merge work. The accepted scope is the bounded unpublished two-crate foundation; the design-only proof override is limited to the deferred Gateway connection-control exchange, and all adoption and release gates remain intact.

The repository's RFC merge approvers rule blocks my exact-head squash, so I requested your review for the final approval/merge.