RFC 0012: Gateway-Independent OpenClaw Core

[fuller-stack-dev]

Summary

• Propose a Host-owned OpenClaw core that keeps conversations, sessions, cron, heartbeat, tasks, and durable delivery intent running independently of channel connectivity and Control Server restarts.
• Preserve the existing openclaw gateway command, gateway.* config, protocol, UI/TUI/CLI behavior, and external plugins through a Compatibility Supervisor and automatic legacy co-located placement.
• Make configuration reload and restart behavior owner-scoped, then roll out the logical and physical split through proof-gated phases.
• Include a detailed implementation-plan sidecar covering ordered work packages, plugin-developer compatibility, rollout gates, risks, and fault/upgrade proof.

Visual Proposal

• Pagedrop: Gateway-Independent OpenClaw Core implementation proposal

Verification

• git diff --check origin/main...HEAD
• RFC frontmatter, required heading order, and one-paragraph summary validator
• RFC-relative link validator
• Current-source survey against openclaw/openclaw main at 127e174c9e4de36f2eccb96300bb3efa69ae9a32

Process Follow-up

• Create the required maintainer-discussion thread for the RFC.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed June 20, 2026, 5:00 PM ET / 21:00 UTC.

Summary
The PR adds RFC 0012 and a sidecar implementation plan proposing a gateway-independent OpenClaw core architecture.

Reproducibility: not applicable. This PR is an RFC proposing future architecture, not a current-main bug with a runtime reproduction path.

Review metrics: 1 noteworthy metric.

• RFC scope: 2 added files, 919 added lines. The PR is a substantial architecture RFC plus implementation-plan sidecar, so review should focus on product direction and compatibility commitments.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🐚 platinum hermit
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🐚 platinum hermit
Result: ready for maintainer review.

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

Rank-up moves:

• [P2] Create or link the required maintainer-discussion thread before this leaves draft.

Risk before merge

• [P1] The RFC template requires a matching maintainer-discussion thread, and the PR body still lists that as a process follow-up before landing.
• [P1] The proposal is compatibility-sensitive for plugin contracts, gateway protocol behavior, upgrade paths, and runtime ownership, so maintainer architecture review matters before acceptance.

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Keep the RFC draft open until the maintainer-discussion thread and architecture review confirm whether this direction should be accepted, narrowed, or revised.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

• [P2] This member-authored draft RFC needs maintainer discussion and product direction review, not an automated repair branch.

Security
Cleared: The diff adds RFC prose only and does not change executable code, dependencies, workflows, secrets handling, or package metadata.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Keep the RFC draft open until the maintainer-discussion thread and architecture review confirm whether this direction should be accepted, narrowed, or revised.

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

Not applicable: this PR is an RFC proposing future architecture, not a current-main bug with a runtime reproduction path.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear: the RFC is a plausible architecture path, but the repository process still requires maintainer discussion before it can be accepted as the best product direction.

AGENTS.md: not found in the target repository.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 0e353436f90b.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add P2: The RFC proposes a broad architecture direction for core runtime and gateway ownership, which is normal-priority maintainer review work rather than an urgent runtime bug.
• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• add feature: ✨ showcase: ClawSweeper spotlight: unusually compelling feature idea for maintainer attention. The proposal targets a strategically important separation between core runtime ownership and transport lifecycle.
• add status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: Real behavior proof is not required for this member-authored RFC-only draft.

Label justifications:

• P2: The RFC proposes a broad architecture direction for core runtime and gateway ownership, which is normal-priority maintainer review work rather than an urgent runtime bug.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• feature: ✨ showcase: ClawSweeper spotlight: unusually compelling feature idea for maintainer attention. The proposal targets a strategically important separation between core runtime ownership and transport lifecycle.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: Real behavior proof is not required for this member-authored RFC-only draft.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• PR metadata: GitHub reports this PR as open, draft, mergeable, and changing two RFC files with 919 additions; the provided item context identifies the author association as MEMBER. (ffa5250ddcb4)
• RFC process requirement: The template says new draft RFCs should remain unmerged and should create a maintainer-discussion thread. (rfcs/0000-template.md:19, 0e353436f90b)
• Draft status and process follow-up: The proposed RFC frontmatter remains status: draft, and the RFC text itself lists the matching discussion thread as a lifecycle requirement. (rfcs/0012-gateway-independent-core.md:7, ffa5250ddcb4)
• No current-main implementation: Local source search on current main found no existing gateway-independent core RFC content or matching title terms in the repository. (0e353436f90b)
• No same-title canonical item: Same-repository GitHub search for the exact RFC title returned only this open PR and no issue, so no duplicate or superseding item is established.
• Target AGENTS check: No AGENTS.md exists inside the target repository root, so no target-specific AGENTS policy applies. (0e353436f90b)

Likely related people:

• kevinlin-openai: Git history and blame show this person introduced the RFC template and later updated the draft, issue, PR, and discussion-thread process rules used to review this PR. (role: RFC process owner; confidence: high; commits: f4fdf38f4717, e366ea9825a4; files: rfcs/0000-template.md)
• RomneyDa: GitHub PR metadata and git history show this person added the sidecar layout guidance that this PR follows for rfcs/0012/implementation-plan.md. (role: adjacent RFC process contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 3aa7d727383f; files: rfcs/0000-template.md)
• giodl73-repo: Recent repository history and merged RFC metadata show repeated work in the RFC area, including recent updates to accepted policy-conformance content. (role: recent RFC area contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 0e353436f90b, e46c2a113cc9; files: rfcs)

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.