Jujutsu support

[atimmer]

I've managing a fairly complicated local jj setup with an octopus merge at the top. Agents want to run CI on that top revision, but crabbox has a ton of git assumptions. It just synced the wrong diff 3 times, which burns a lot of unnecessary token. Having jj support would fix that.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: keeping this open for maintainer follow-up; there is still a little grit to resolve. Reviewed July 31, 2026, 11:21 AM ET / 15:21 UTC.

Summary
Keep open. The supplied maintainer triage confirms a real Git-manifest sync boundary that can select the wrong revision in a Jujutsu workspace; it supports a narrow detection-and-documentation slice, while native Jujutsu revision semantics still require a minimized reproduction and explicit product scope. Repository inspection could not run because the read-only sandbox failed before executing any command.

Reproducibility: unclear. for full native support: the maintainer confirms the Git-manifest mechanism can silently select the wrong diff in a Jujutsu workspace, but the requested octopus-merge case lacks a minimized current-main reproduction. The blocked read-only inspection also prevented source-level confirmation in this run.

Ways to help us reproduce this

• Add a screenshot or short recording showing the behavior.
• Add expected vs actual behavior.
• Share version, platform, channel/provider, and relevant config details.

Maintainer decision needed

Question	Recommendation
Should Crabbox accept the bounded detection-and-guidance behavior as the supported Jujutsu path now, or sponsor native Jujutsu revision selection once a minimized octopus-merge reproduction is supplied?	Land safe detection first: Detect Jujutsu workspaces, refuse ambiguous Git-manifest syncs with actionable colocated-Git guidance, and document the supported workflow.

Why: The maintainer has approved a safe first slice but explicitly distinguished it from a larger native adapter whose revision semantics cannot be selected from the report alone.

Next step
The maintainer-approved first slice is bounded, but the issue carries an explicit no-new-fix-PR signal and the broader native behavior still needs a minimized reproduction and product decision.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Implement and document a fail-safe Jujutsu-workspace detection path that prevents silent wrong-diff syncs and points users to the supported colocated-Git workflow; design native Jujutsu revision selection only after a minimized reproduction defines the required semantics.

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

Unclear for full native support: the maintainer confirms the Git-manifest mechanism can silently select the wrong diff in a Jujutsu workspace, but the requested octopus-merge case lacks a minimized current-main reproduction. The blocked read-only inspection also prevented source-level confirmation in this run.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes for the scoped first step: explicit workspace detection and guidance is a safer, narrower response than guessing native Jujutsu revision semantics. A native adapter remains unclear until a minimized reproduction establishes the intended revision model.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Remaining risk / open question:

• Without a minimized Jujutsu workspace reproduction, a native revision adapter could encode incorrect semantics for colocated Git, octopus merges, or revision selection.
• The sandbox failure prevented verification of current main, documentation, tests, and history, so this review cannot safely assert that the narrow detection slice is already implemented.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 5aa1c3983874.

Label changes

Label justifications:

• P2: Wrong source revision selection wastes remote test runs but the supplied evidence does not show a broad outage, data loss, or security boundary failure.
• impact:other: The concrete impact is incorrect remote test input and unnecessary execution cost, which does not match the more specific owned impact classes.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Maintainer scope guidance: The July 28, 2026 maintainer comment states that sync is Git-manifest-based and that a Jujutsu workspace can silently produce the wrong diff. It explicitly endorses Jujutsu-workspace detection, a clear colocated-Git error, and documentation as an initial slice, while treating a native revision adapter as a larger separately designed change.
• Local-inspection infrastructure failure: The required read-only repository inspection command failed immediately with bwrap: loopback: Failed RTM_NEWADDR: Operation not permitted; no current source, tests, history, VISION.md, or maturity scorecard could be inspected in this review.
• Unrelated merged reference excluded: The provided merged PR fix(blacksmith): don't stop a concurrently-claimed testbox in failed-warmup cleanup #1126 concerns concurrent Blacksmith cleanup and does not establish a Jujutsu sync fix or a shared root cause.

Likely related people:

• steipete: Provided the current maintainer-approved boundary: a safe Jujutsu workspace detection/docs slice now, with native revision support requiring a minimized reproduction and further design. (role: recent scope contributor; confidence: medium)

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.

[steipete]

Maintainer triage: PRs welcome on this one.

Scope guidance for anyone picking it up: sync today is git-manifest-based, so a jj workspace can silently produce the wrong diff (as reported). A good first slice is jj-workspace detection with a clear error pointing at the colocated-git workflow, plus docs — a full native jj revision adapter is a much bigger change and would need a minimized repro to design against. Marking help wanted.