✅ Qwen Triage finished — view run. See the stage comments in this thread for the result.

✅ Qwen Triage 已完成 —— 查看运行。结果见本线程中的各阶段评论。

Re-run at head aad10c09c1 — the previous pass reviewed 5d7d8d32, before the second commit landed. Every stage re-ran; this comment is updated in place rather than duplicated.

Thanks for the PR. The substance of my earlier read still stands, so this pass concentrates on what moved: the new commit, the two review threads you closed, and the verification lane I asked for.

Template looks good ✓ — every required section filled in, Tested-on table included, complete Chinese translation rather than a summary. The Risk & Scope section grew two bullets since the last pass (the \r caveat and the goal-approval site); both languages carry them, which is what keeps the section trustworthy instead of decorative.

Problem: observed, not theoretical, and now corroborated by more than your own run. #13566 is open and labelled type/bug / category/security / scope/web-shell / priority/P2; it exists because #13549 merged with two review threads closed by the merge rather than by a fix. Last pass I explicitly refused to treat "2 failed / 81 passed on unfixed main" as more than your claim. It is no longer only your claim: the /verify lane re-derived it independently at this head (see Stage 2). I still did not execute PR code myself — an unattended triage run does not — but the fail-then-pass reproduction is now witnessed by a second party rather than asserted by its author.

Direction: aligned, unchanged from the last pass. Sanitising untrusted text where it reaches a human decision surface is well-trodden upstream; claude-code's CHANGELOG carries entries of exactly this class, including one landing on the same remediation shape (terminal control characters "now show as \uXXXX escapes"), one refusing raw control characters "other than tab and newline" — the same carve-out sanitizeControlChars keeps — and a screen-reader fix where a control character dropped visible lines from speech, which is your aria-describedby angle. No entry names the Web Shell approval card specifically; the area is clearly relevant rather than peripheral.

Size: not applicable. Both source files sit under packages/web-shell/client/, so no core-infrastructure path is touched and the change stays inside one package. For the record: 34 production lines (23+/11−), 79 test lines, 8 docs lines (4+/4−), no generated or schema files. Well under every advisory threshold.

Approach: the scope still feels right, and the second commit is the one thing here that needed checking rather than assuming.

ci(docs): format the daemon event-schema table for the Prettier gate looks like unrelated drive-by churn on its face — a docs table in a diff about an approval card. It is not. At the previous head Lint & Static was red, and I proved at the time that the failure was pre-existing repo-wide formatting drift on docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md landed by your own merge base, not a regression from this change; the repo-wide Prettier gate fails the PR for it regardless. This commit fixes exactly that file and nothing else, and Lint & Static is green now. One honest consequence worth recording: main has since received a byte-identical fix for the same table, so after merge this commit is a no-op — I confirmed that by fetching the file at your head and at main and diffing them (identical). That is noise in the merged history, not a defect, and a squash merge would erase it if anyone cares.

The design decisions I checked last pass still hold, and I re-verified them at this head rather than carrying them over: JSX gates and the aria-describedby list stay on the raw values while only the display strings are sanitised (the subtle part — reversed, the IDREF dangles); sanitizeControlChars over escapePreviewText, since the latter's class starts at U+007F and would let ESC/BEL through; and no widening of the shared helper, which is a policy call across seven call sites, not a range search.

Both review threads are now isResolved: true, and I checked the resolutions instead of taking them:

• R1-2 (the \r / CRLF claim). You corrected the claim rather than the code, which the finding itself named as a complete fix. I re-verified the mechanism independently: \r is \x0d, inside the \x0b-\x1f band of CONTROL_CHARS_REGEX at toolFormatting.ts:117-118, and case '\r': return '\\r' is at :128-129 — your cite correction is right, my earlier :127-128 was off by one. getDescriptionText only .trim()s the ends (:115-118), so an interior \r does survive into descriptionDisplay. The corrected Risk & Scope sentence is now accurate in both languages.
• R1-1 (the goal-approval fourth site). You named it in Risk & Scope and recorded it on web-shell: approval card leaves sibling model-supplied text unsanitised, and the command block comment overclaims coverage #13566. I confirmed the tracker comment exists (web-shell: approval card leaves sibling model-supplied text unsanitised, and the command block comment overclaims coverage #13566, 2026-10-07T11:05:15Z) — that was the part that mattered, since a PR description stops being read at merge. I also re-confirmed the underlying facts: GoalApprovalContent.tsx contains zero sanitiser calls and imports only useState, useI18n, Tabs and styles, and the goal branch's JSX is in no hunk of this diff.

Site C's deferral also still holds at review time: #13445 remains open and draft, head cb53b83edb, untouched since 2026-10-05. So your conditional follow-up note is still live and still the right mitigation. Using Refs instead of Fixes remains what keeps the accounting honest — #13566 stays open to own site C, the goal site and item 3.

Risk: no elevated risk signals — I re-ran the revert-correlated path check against this head's file list and nothing matches.

Moving on to code review. 🔍

— Qwen Code · qwen3.8-max-2026-09-02

_{Reviewed at aad10c09c13021ee809d5046334ad33e05757452 · re-run with @qwen-code /triage}

Code review

No blocking issues, and nothing new to report on the source: the only commit since my last pass is the docs formatting one, so ToolApproval.tsx and ToolApproval.test.tsx are byte-identical to what I reviewed at 5d7d8d32. I re-verified rather than carried the conclusion over, because "unchanged since I looked" is exactly the claim worth checking.

What I re-checked at this head:

• Every read site of the two raw values. descriptionText is read raw only at the aria-describedby entry (:630) and the element gate (:648); the body and the title at :649-650 both use descriptionDisplay. execWarningsText is read raw only at its own derivation (:590), the aria-describedby entry (:633) and the element gate (:672); the body and the title at :676-678 both use execWarningsDisplay. No missed read site, no value computed and never used.
• The two sites that stay raw are precisely the two the PR discloses. :658-659 is the goal branch (objective={goalObjective}, content={contentText || …}) and :688-690 is the showsContent <pre> (site C). I found no third undisclosed raw model-text site in the dialog, which is the thing that would have turned an honest partial fix into a misleading one.
• The helper's contract, at source. CONTROL_CHARS_REGEX (toolFormatting.ts:117-118) is [\x00-\x08\x0b-\x1f\x7f-\x9f\u202a-\u202e\u2066-\u2069] — so it substitutes (\uXXXX, or \b/\f/\r) and never deletes. That is what makes the text ? sanitizeControlChars(text) : undefined shape safe: a truthy input always yields a truthy output, so the raw-gated element can never render referenced-but-empty and the IDREF can neither dangle nor point at nothing. It also confirms the rewritten comment now matches the regex exactly, and that the disclosed pass-throughs (zero-width, U+2028/U+2029, astral TAG, U+00AD, U+061C, U+200E/F) really are outside the class — the PR neither fixes nor hides them.

The two non-blocking notes from my last pass are unchanged and still non-blocking: the dropped ShellToolOutput cross-reference was accurate and useful (a two-word restore), and the new comment's negative examples read as illustrative rather than exhaustive. The third note I made — that the Risk & Scope sentence about \n/\t was untrue for CRLF text — is now moot: you corrected the sentence, and I verified the corrected version against the source rather than accepting it (see Stage 1).

Conventions respected: no over-abstraction, no duplicated logic, no new utility where an existing one fitted, no any, tests collocated, PascalCase.tsx for the component.

Test evidence

This is an unattended CI run, so per the gate's rules I did not build, run, or execute anything from this PR. The evidence below is the PR's own CI read through the API for the reviewed commit, plus one clearly-attributed third-party report. Snapshot taken once; I did not poll, and nothing is pending.

CI on aad10c09c1 is green across the board — zero failures. That is a change from the previous head, where Lint & Static was red on pre-existing formatting drift in a docs file this PR did not touch; the second commit fixed that file and the check now passes. Test (ubuntu-latest, Node 22.x) — the job that runs ToolApproval.test.tsx — is success, which closes the gap I flagged last pass: the two new tests pass on this head, and the pre-existing multi-line .join('\n') expectations stay green. web-shell E2E Smoke, Capture web-shell visuals and both Desktop Shell jobs are green too.

Skipped, and therefore gaps rather than passes: Test (macos-latest, Node 22.x), Test (windows-latest, Node 22.x) and Integration Tests (CLI, No Sandbox). The unit-suite signal is Linux-only on this PR. For a pure string transform inside a React component that is a low concern — there is no platform-dependent code path in the diff — but I am recording it as a gap, not as a pass. The remaining checks on the commit are bot orchestration jobs (route, label, assign, authorize, review-pr, …), all completed.

_{One row per check name (latest run); bot orchestration jobs omitted; failures would sort first. / 每个检查名一行（取最新一次运行），省略机器人编排 job，失败项排在最前。}

The sandboxed lane I asked for last pass has now been run, and it settles the behavioural claim. @qwen-code /verify reported on this thread at 2026-10-07T14:24Z, pinned to this exact head aad10c09c13021ee809d5046334ad33e05757452 (base 1753948e3e). To be clear about provenance: that is @wenshao's report from the isolated verification lane, not evidence I produced — I executed nothing. Reading it as a third-party witness rather than as my own result, its four load-bearing findings are:

• A/B proof. The same 83-test head file, with the base ToolApproval.tsx overlaid, reddens exactly the two new tests (2 failed / 81 passed), with error text byte-identical to the reproduction quoted in the PR description; the head arm is 83/83. So the tests are not vacuous and the fix is what turns them green.
• Mutation matrix. Reverting each site's JSX to raw independently reddens exactly its own test (1 failed / 82 passed each way) — each hunk is pinned by its own test, with no cross-pinning and no survivor.
• Coverage-boundary probe, 10/10. Both halves of the PR's honesty claims hold: the escaped set is as described (including \r → visible \ + r, which makes the newly disclosed CRLF caveat literally true), and every disclosed pass-through really does pass through — nothing was silently fixed or silently widened.
• Regression attribution and trial merge. 52 files / 2801 cases across messages/ and every test file referencing ToolApproval show zero collateral on the base arm; a trial merge into a main ten commits ahead is conflict-free and re-tests green; web-shell tsc --noEmit reports 0 errors on a clean build, which supersedes the 57-error count in your Risk & Scope as an artifact of a stale hardlinked sdk-typescript/dist — worth striking from the record, since it currently understates the PR.

What nothing has covered: a real browser painting a crafted payload. Your description says plainly that no live render was verified, and the /verify report lists the same gap. Capture web-shell visuals is green and its base→head preview shows exactly one changed screenshot (collab-team-panel-light), with no approval-card image differing — which is the expected result for a sanitizer that is a no-op on ordinary text, and useful as proof of no unintended visual change, but it does not observe escaped-text paint because the mock flows carry no control characters. I am naming no lane for this one, deliberately: /verify has already run and is source-level, and /tmux drives the TUI rather than this browser surface, so neither would close it. My judgement on the residual risk is that it is low and I'll say why rather than just note the gap — the sanitizer's output is plain ASCII \uXXXX, React escapes text children and attribute values, and #13549 already shipped the identical transform for the command block one element away with a passing bidi test. There is no plausible paint divergence for \uXXXX. If a maintainer wants it observed anyway, that is a browser-session check, not a triage lane.

Real-scenario tmux testing: N/A — unattended CI run, and the gate forbids executing PR-derived code here. Nothing was driven locally and no terminal capture is offered in place of one.

— Qwen Code · qwen3.8-max-2026-09-02

_{Reviewed at aad10c09c13021ee809d5046334ad33e05757452 · re-run with @qwen-code /triage}

Confidence: 4/5 — everything I held open last pass is now closed with evidence rather than assertion; what keeps it off 5/5 is two named nits and the fact that merging this does not close #13566.

Stepping back with the whole picture in view. Last pass I approved in principle but refused to assert a test result that did not exist yet — Test (ubuntu-latest) was still in flight, and the fail-then-pass reproduction rested on your local run alone. Both of those are now resolved, and resolved in the way that actually counts: CI settled green on this exact head, and the /verify lane independently re-derived the A/B result, then went further than I asked and proved each hunk is pinned by exactly its own test. That mutation matrix is the piece I would have wanted and did not think to request. A suite that passes identically with and without a diff is green and worthless; this one reddens precisely where the fix is removed.

The two review threads were the other open item, and this is where I want to be specific, because "author says resolved" is the cheapest thing in this job to accept. Neither thread produced a code change, and a zero-code response to a review finding is exactly where a gate should slow down. So I checked both against the source instead of against the reply:

• The \r finding was never a demand to change behaviour — it named two complete fixes, and you took the documentation one. I re-derived the mechanism myself (\x0d inside the \x0b-\x1f band at toolFormatting.ts:117-118, the case '\r' mapping at :128-129, getDescriptionText trimming only the ends at :115-118) and the corrected Risk & Scope sentence is now true in both languages. Your reasoning for declining the normalisation is also the part I find persuasive rather than merely acceptable: escaping \r is the shared helper's pinned behaviour, the command block has done it since fix(web-shell): escape control characters in the managed approval args preview #13549, and normalising at two of seven call sites would make the card inconsistent with the block sitting one element away. That is a contract argument, not a convenience argument.
• The goal-branch finding was an accounting gap, and accounting gaps are only fixed where the accounting lives. You recorded it on web-shell: approval card leaves sibling model-supplied text unsanitised, and the command block comment overclaims coverage #13566 — I confirmed the comment is there — which is the part that survives the merge. A PR description does not.

On the independent-proposal test I should stay as straight as I was last pass: #13566 prescribed the approach in unusual detail, so there was little design space to differ in and I would have landed in the same place. What is the author's own is everything that makes the tests load-bearing rather than decorative — the exact-escaped-output assertions, the check that the sibling command block keeps its separate payload, and reaching .desc through the aria-describedby IDREF so the test doubles as proof the ARIA wiring still resolves. Those choices are why the mutation matrix came out clean.

Would I thank or curse whoever wrote this in six months? Thank. The overclaiming comment is gone and the two that replaced it state what the helper covers and why the gate must stay on the raw value — the second is precisely the invariant a future editor breaks by reflex, written down where they will read it. The mild curse is still the dropped ShellToolOutput cross-reference: accurate, useful, and now missing. Two words to restore, and I would not hold a PR for it.

The reservations, plainly, so they are not buried under a green board:

• Merging this does not close the hole. Two of the dialog's four raw model-text sites are fixed. Site C waits on draft feat: render plan approval as markdown and capture plans as Todos under Session Workflow #13445, which is still open, still draft, and still unmoved since 2026-10-05 — if it stalls, site C has no owner beyond the open issue. The goal branch is now named and tracked but unfixed, and it is the one site no permission rule or approval mode skips. Item 3 (widening the helper) is a maintainer policy call that nobody has made. Refs instead of Fixes is what keeps all of that visible, and it is the right call — but a maintainer should read this merge as progress on web-shell: approval card leaves sibling model-supplied text unsanitised, and the command block comment overclaims coverage #13566, not as closing it.
• A small, disclosed legibility regression. CRLF-terminated text at the two newly sanitised sites now paints a visible \r per line end where a browser previously collapsed the break. It is cosmetic, it does not defeat the bidi neutralisation this PR exists to add (U+202E is escaped either way), the realistic trigger is narrow, and it is now honestly recorded in both languages. I accept the decline; I am noting that the tradeoff is real rather than theoretical.
• No real browser observation of escaped-text paint, and no lane that would supply one — my reasoning for calling that low-risk is in Stage 2 rather than repeated here.
• Unit-suite signal is Linux-only on this PR (macOS and Windows test jobs skipped). No platform-dependent path in the diff, so I treat it as a gap, not a concern.

Am I approving because it is genuinely good, or because I ran out of reasons to say no? The reasons to say no were raised last pass, and each was answered with a verified correction or an independent witness rather than with reassurance. That is the sequence I want to see.

Verdict: approve, now rather than deferred — no PR workflow run is in flight on this head, the fork-refactor guardrail does not apply (same-repository branch, fix type), and Stage 0 raised no escalation because no core-infrastructure path is touched. The approval is pinned to the reviewed commit through the reviews API. For the maintainer's awareness: main requires two approving reviews and this PR currently sits at REVIEW_REQUIRED, so this is one vote, not a merge — a human sign-off is still needed, and the site-C / goal-site / item-3 remainders on #13566 are the thing worth a human eye before the issue itself is closed.

— Qwen Code · qwen3.8-max-2026-09-02

_{Reviewed at aad10c09c13021ee809d5046334ad33e05757452 · re-run with @qwen-code /triage}

🖼️ web-shell visual preview

Rendered against a mock daemon (no real backend): the PR base vs this PR head aad10c0. Only screenshots that changed are shown (flows below, if any, are head-only) — refreshes on every push.

Screenshots · before / after

_{Full-resolution recordings (.webm) are attached to the workflow run.}

— Qwen Code · web-shell visuals

Verdict: merge-ready — 16,950 scripted assertions executed, 0 unexpected failures. Verified head aad10c09c13021ee809d5046334ad33e05757452 (base 1753948e3ecbafd8ac75866dabb6289652ee2361); trial merge into current main (origin/main @ verification time, 10 commits ahead) is conflict-free and re-tested green.

Central claim and A/B proof

Claim: the approval card's description line (.desc, body + title tooltip) and exec-warnings <pre> (body + title) rendered model-supplied text verbatim; the PR routes both through the same sanitizeControlChars the command block already uses, with render gates kept on the raw values so aria-describedby IDREFs cannot dangle.

Method: single head worktree; the base arm is the base ToolApproval.tsx overlaid on the head tree (source-level vitest run — no dist involved for this surface), proven to differ from head by exactly the PR hunks (git diff overlay vs head = 23+/11- in that one file; lockfiles byte-identical base↔head, so no dependency confound). Identical head test file (83 tests) drives both arms.

Mutation matrix (each hunk load-bearing)

The new tests are not vacuous, and each pins its own site — no cross-pinning, no survivor.

sanitizeControlChars coverage-boundary probe (10/10)

A scripted battery against the real helper pins both halves of the PR's honesty claims:

• Escaped (as stated): C0 (\x1b, \x07), DEL/C1 (\x7f, \x85), bidi embeddings/overrides (U+202A–E), bidi isolates (U+2066–69); \r → the two visible characters \ + r (the disclosed CRLF caveat is literally true); \n/\t preserved.
• Disclosed pass-throughs (all confirmed, none silently fixed or widened): U+200B, U+2060, U+FEFF, U+00AD, U+061C, U+200E/U+200F, U+2028/U+2029, astral TAG U+E0020/U+E007F.

Disclosure audit (author's "not covered" claims, independently checked)

• Fourth unsanitised site confirmed: GoalApprovalContent.tsx contains zero sanitize references and renders {section.text}, {objective || fullText}, {fullText} verbatim; aria-describedby does include the goal body id. Pre-existing (git diff base..head byte-identical), so correctly out of scope — the PR's disclosure is accurate.
• toolFormatting.ts untouched (byte-identical base↔head) — item 3 of web-shell: approval card leaves sibling model-supplied text unsanitised, and the command block comment overclaims coverage #13566 genuinely deferred.
• Site C (showsContent <pre>) still renders contentText raw at head, as disclosed (deferred to feat: render plan approval as markdown and capture plans as Todos under Session Workflow #13445's rewrite).
• No raw leak at the fixed sites: after the change, raw descriptionText/execWarningsText are read only by the render gates and the aria-describedby IDREF computation; every rendered output (body + title) uses the sanitized variant.
• CRLF caveat: \r is inside the regex and maps to a visible \r — probe line 5 of the battery confirms the PR's own caveat wording is precise.

Regression attribution (targeted suite)

All 9 test files importing ToolApproval plus the entire messages/ directory — 52 files, 2,801 tests per arm, same NODE_OPTIONS=--no-experimental-webstorage on both arms (this host's Node 25 jsdom quirk):

Zero collateral: nothing outside the two new tests flips.

Full web-shell suite at head (413 files): 10,889 passed; the only red file was build-artifact.test.ts (24 tests), every failure ENOENT …/packages/web-shell/dist — an unscaffolded-worktree artifact. After building the package, that file re-runs 24/24 green. Not PR-related; disclosed for completeness.

Trial merge into current main

origin/main has advanced 10 commits past the base. git merge-tree is conflict-free. Two facts worth the merger's attention:

1. Main touched docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md since the base — with a change byte-identical to this PR's second commit (same result blob 9203cefc35). The docs commit is therefore a no-op on merge. (Locally, both the base and head content of that file pass the repo-pinned prettier --check and are byte-identical to prettier's own normalized output, so the commit message's "for the Prettier gate" motivation does not reproduce here; since the identical reformat independently landed on main, some gate path evidently did require it. Docs-only, zero code impact — noted, not blocking.)
2. Main did not touch ToolApproval.tsx / ToolApproval.test.tsx. The merged tree was materialized locally (local-only merge commit aa61f9c8), workspace links realpath-verified to resolve inside the merged tree, and the focused file re-runs 83/83 green.

Gates

• eslint on both changed files: clean.
• tsc -p tsconfig.json --noEmit in packages/web-shell: exit 0, zero errors (the 57 pre-existing errors the author saw locally were their stale hardlinked sdk dist, as they suspected; with a freshly built @qwen-code/sdk dist the package typechecks fully clean).
• prettier --check on the docs file: clean at head, in the merged tree, and (see above) also at base.

Not covered

• Real-browser rendering — evidence is jsdom textContent/title assertions plus the helper-level probe; no visual browser pass (author disclosed the same).
• Windows/Linux native runs — this round ran on macOS 15.7.9 (Intel), Node v25.8.0.
• Site C and the goal-approval site — deliberately out of scope per the PR; confirmed they remain raw (disclosure verified, not re-litigated).
• Full-suite base arm — attribution was done on the 52-file targeted superset of every file that can observe the change (all ToolApproval importers + messages/), not a second full-suite run.
• First full-suite attempt wedged with zero live workers (this host's known spawn-stall class issue); restarted with file logging and completed. Environmental, both arms unaffected.

Methodology

macOS 15.7.9 (Intel), Node v25.8.0 with NODE_OPTIONS=--no-experimental-webstorage on every vitest invocation (known local jsdom conflict, applied identically to all arms). One worktree at PR head (pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts, then built acp-bridge + sdk-typescript + web-shell dists); the base arm is the base ToolApproval.tsx overlaid in place (delta proven == the PR hunks) since this surface needs no compiled dist. Trial-merge tree is a local-only commit (aa61f9c8) with node_modules clonefile-copied from the head tree (lockfile byte-identical head↔merged, realpath-verified). Raw logs: tmp/pr13578-verify-20261007-212145/logs/ in the verifying checkout; harness probe file was removed after use. Assertion accounting: 16,950 executed scripted checks (test cases across all runs + lint/typecheck/format/realpath/lockfile checks), 0 unexpected failures; the 24 environmental build-artifact reds were root-caused to the missing dist and re-run green (24/24), so they are disclosed but not counted as failures.

@qwen-code /triage

Sandboxed verification: ❌ not passed — findings reported (agent verdict) - workflow run

Ran the PR in an isolated, token-free container: A/B against the base build, mock-free harness assertions, targeted gates. Advisory evidence for human reviewers — not a review, an approval, or a CI check.

Scripted assertions: 11007 passed · 0 failed · 11007 total

Flakiness gate: ✅ 1 changed test file(s) x 5 identical rounds, no divergence

expected 'Delete temporary data\u202e\nls \u001…' not to contain '\u202e'
expected 'Runs outside the workspace in /tmp/\u…' not to contain '\u202e'

cd packages/web-shell && npx vitest run \
  client/components/messages/__verify13578census.test.tsx \
  --config vitest.config.ts --coverage.enabled=false
# (census.test.tsx is in this artifact dir; copy it into client/components/messages/ first)

   const descriptionDisplay = descriptionText
-    ? sanitizeControlChars(descriptionText)
+    ? sanitizeControlChars(descriptionText.replace(/\r\n?/g, '\n'))
     : undefined;
@@
   const execWarningsDisplay = execWarningsText
-    ? sanitizeControlChars(execWarningsText)
+    ? sanitizeControlChars(execWarningsText.replace(/\r\n?/g, '\n'))
     : undefined;

rounds=5 files=1 skipped=0
file packages/web-shell/client/components/messages/ToolApproval.test.tsx: (cd packages/web-shell) npx --no-install vitest run ./client/components/messages/ToolApproval.test.tsx


per-file results (P=pass F=fail I=infra-exit, one letter per run):
  packages/web-shell/client/components/messages/ToolApproval.test.tsx: PPPPP

verdict: pass
summary: 1 changed test file(s) x 5 identical rounds, no divergence

--- per-invocation detail (full copy in the artifact) ---
round 1 · packages/web-shell/client/components/messages/ToolApproval.test.tsx: P (exit 0)
round 2 · packages/web-shell/client/components/messages/ToolApproval.test.tsx: P (exit 0)
round 3 · packages/web-shell/client/components/messages/ToolApproval.test.tsx: P (exit 0)
round 4 · packages/web-shell/client/components/messages/ToolApproval.test.tsx: P (exit 0)
round 5 · packages/web-shell/client/components/messages/ToolApproval.test.tsx: P (exit 0)

Evidence images

Harness scripts and raw logs are in the workflow run artifacts (7-day retention).

— Qwen Code · sandboxed verification