chore: remove stale PR draft

[steipete]

Summary

Remove one high-confidence repository hygiene artifact and prevent its recurrence.

• Delete PR_DESCRIPTION.md. It was introduced by b867e5beb (docs(sed): sedmat v3.5 reference documentation) but is only the one-off PR description for that past Sedmat change. The file is not referenced by code, workflows, scripts, docs, manifests, or repository instructions.
• Add an exact root-level /PR_DESCRIPTION.md ignore rule for local PR drafting.

The wider tracked-file audit found no other high-confidence junk; deliberately introduced and referenced build scripts, live-test harnesses, refactor notes, generated docs, assets, and versioned test fixtures remain untouched.

Proof

• CI=true make ci
• git diff --check
• git check-ignore --no-index -v PR_DESCRIPTION.md
• Autoreview clean: Codex gpt-5.6-sol, high reasoning, no accepted/actionable findings

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed August 2, 2026, 7:53 PM ET / 23:53 UTC.

ClawSweeper review

What this changes

Deletes the tracked root-level PR_DESCRIPTION.md draft and adds /PR_DESCRIPTION.md to .gitignore to keep future local PR drafts out of version control.

Merge readiness

⚠️ Ready for maintainer review - 1 item remains

This collaborator-authored PR remains necessary because current main still tracks the one-off root draft and lacks the proposed exact ignore rule. The patch is narrowly scoped, has no correctness or security finding, and is ready for normal maintainer acceptance once the remaining required check completes.

Priority: P3
Reviewed head: a02259437b424de3bf24999ed37ce78c615776bf

Review scores

Measure	Result	What it means
Overall readiness	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	A focused, low-risk cleanup with direct repository-state evidence and no correctness findings.
Proof confidence	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Not applicable: This collaborator-authored repository-metadata cleanup is directly verifiable from the source tree and diff; the external-contributor runtime-proof gate does not apply.
Patch quality	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	No actionable review findings were identified.

Verification

Check	Result	Evidence
Real behavior	Not applicable	Not applicable: This collaborator-authored repository-metadata cleanup is directly verifiable from the source tree and diff; the external-contributor runtime-proof gate does not apply.
Evidence reviewed	4 items	Current main still contains the artifact: The current default branch lists PR_DESCRIPTION.md at the repository root, while its .gitignore has no corresponding root-level drafting rule; the requested cleanup is not already implemented. Patch is focused and internally coherent: The PR removes the 77-line prose-only draft and adds one exact ignore entry under a local-drafting heading; no runtime source, dependencies, workflow, or release logic changes. No live repository reference found: A whole-tree search for the draft filename and the proposed local-drafting label found no current repository consumer, supporting removal of the standalone prose artifact.
Findings	None	None.
Security	None	None.

How this fits together

Root repository files are distributed with gogcli's source, documentation, and build configuration. This change removes a historical PR-authoring artifact from that tracked surface and prevents the same local-only draft filename from being committed again.

flowchart LR
  A[Contributor drafts PR text] --> B[Root repository files]
  B --> C[Git tracking rules]
  C --> D[Repository source tree]
  E[Exact local ignore rule] --> C
  F[Remove stale draft] --> D

Loading

Before merge

• Complete next step (P2) - No repair lane is needed; this collaborator-authored PR should proceed through normal maintainer acceptance after the remaining required check finishes.

Agent review details

Security

None.

Review metrics

Metric	Value	Why it matters
Changed surface	2 files affected: 1 removed, 1 changed	The PR confines its 77 deletions and 3 additions to root repository hygiene rather than product behavior.

Technical review

Best possible solution:

Land the focused cleanup so the repository stops shipping the obsolete PR draft and future local drafts with this exact filename remain untracked.

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

Not applicable: this is repository metadata cleanup, and current-main inspection directly confirms that the stale draft remains tracked.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: removing the unreferenced root draft and ignoring exactly that local filename is the narrowest maintainable solution.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 1c5a1ec15fa8.

Labels

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk repository-hygiene cleanup with no user-facing runtime behavior change.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: This collaborator-authored repository-metadata cleanup is directly verifiable from the source tree and diff; the external-contributor runtime-proof gate does not apply.

Evidence

What I checked:

• Current main still contains the artifact: The current default branch lists PR_DESCRIPTION.md at the repository root, while its .gitignore has no corresponding root-level drafting rule; the requested cleanup is not already implemented. (PR_DESCRIPTION.md:1, 1c5a1ec15fa8)
• Patch is focused and internally coherent: The PR removes the 77-line prose-only draft and adds one exact ignore entry under a local-drafting heading; no runtime source, dependencies, workflow, or release logic changes. (.gitignore:36, a02259437b42)
• No live repository reference found: A whole-tree search for the draft filename and the proposed local-drafting label found no current repository consumer, supporting removal of the standalone prose artifact. (PR_DESCRIPTION.md:1, 1c5a1ec15fa8)
• History links the draft to an earlier documentation import: Git history shows the draft was introduced by the Sedmat documentation commit; current-main blame attributes the retained root copy to the v0.34.1 release preparation snapshot, not to an active feature path. (PR_DESCRIPTION.md:1, b867e5beb787)

Likely related people:

• Peter Steinberger: Current-main blame attributes the retained draft and adjacent .gitignore area to the v0.34.1 release-preparation commit; Peter also authored this focused cleanup. (role: recent root-metadata contributor; confidence: high; commits: 4747fb05a429, a02259437b42; files: PR_DESCRIPTION.md, .gitignore)
• Vinston: The earlier Sedmat documentation commit introduced the standalone draft file that this PR removes. (role: artifact introducer; confidence: high; commits: b867e5beb787; files: PR_DESCRIPTION.md)

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 (1 earlier review cycle)

• reviewed 2026-08-02T22:21:36.039Z sha a022594 :: needs maintainer review before merge. :: none