[codex] Recover browser image artifact downloads

[steipete]

Summary

• retry manual-login DevTools tab creation on fresh browser launches, not only reused Chrome sessions
• fall back to authenticated browser-context fetch when Node fetch cannot download ChatGPT generated image artifacts
• reject non-ChatGPT generated-image lookalike URLs before attaching ChatGPT cookies
• add focused regression coverage and changelog entry

Validation

• pnpm exec vitest run tests/browser/chromeLifecycle.test.ts tests/browser/chatgptImages.test.ts tests/browser/pageActionsExpressions.test.ts
• pnpm run build
• pnpm test
• pnpm run check
• pnpm run test:packed-cli
• autoreview --mode local

Live proof

• Built dist CLI launched the default manual-login profile fresh; the run reached profile auth and failed because that private profile is not signed in.
• Built dist CLI with the real signed-in Chrome profile forced Node-side ChatGPT image fetch to fail, retried through the authenticated browser context, and saved a valid PNG.
• Artifact proof before local cleanup: PNG 1254 x 1254, 810027 bytes, SHA-256 2b5fc33b822bdf6acd9b7dad6c60009846bf130fa8080eaef1c5ef7aed1f6abf.

Supersedes #252 only because pushing the maintainer fixup to the contributor fork was rejected by GitHub.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed June 12, 2026, 3:57 AM ET / 07:57 UTC.

Summary
Review failed before ClawSweeper could summarize the requested change.

Reproducibility: unclear. The review failed before ClawSweeper could establish a reproduction path.

Review metrics: none identified.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Result: rating does not apply to this item.

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

Risk before merge

• [P1] No close action taken because the review did not complete.

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Retry the Codex review after fixing the execution failure.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

• Review did not complete, so no work-lane recommendation was made.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Retry the Codex review after fixing the execution failure.

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

Unclear. The review failed before ClawSweeper could establish a reproduction path.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear. Retry the review first so ClawSweeper can evaluate the actual issue and fix direction.

AGENTS.md: unclear because the file could not be read completely.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against b1c0755507ed.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool: Overall readiness is 🌊 off-meta tidepool; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🌊 off-meta tidepool.

Label justifications:

• rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool: Overall readiness is 🌊 off-meta tidepool; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🌊 off-meta tidepool.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• failure reason: retryable codex transport failure (capacity)
• codex failure detail: Codex review failed for this PR with exit 1.
• codex stderr: expect(cdpNewMock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(2);\n+ expect(cdpMock).toHaveBeenCalledWith({ host: "127.0.0.1", port: 9222, target: "target-3" });\n+ });\n });\n \n describe("closeBlankChromeTabs", () => {".
• codex stdout: No stdout captured.

Likely related people:

• unknown: Codex failed before it could trace repository history. (role: review did not complete; confidence: low)

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.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 8bfe51f7d8

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Support chat.openai.com cookies before accepting its images

When a generated image is discovered on the legacy chat.openai.com host, this allow-list now lets it through validation, but saveChatGptGeneratedImages still builds cookies only for https://chatgpt.com/ and returns early on an empty cookie header before the new browser-context Runtime fallback can run. In a signed-in chat.openai.com session with no chatgpt.com cookies, image saving therefore fails with “Missing ChatGPT cookies” even though the authenticated tab could fetch the same-origin artifact.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.