test(qa): expand docker lane adapter - #97937

Best possible solution:

Land after maintainer review confirms the lane registry and discovery contract and exact-head CI/QA evidence for the moved adapter.

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

Not applicable as a bug report. The reviewable behavior is source-checkable: current main lacks the new discovery modes and aliases, while the PR head adds them and repoints Docker-backed YAML scenarios to the moved adapter.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. Moving the adapter under QA Lab runtime while keeping heavy Docker shell scripts as thin entrypoints is the narrow owner-boundary cleanup, and deleting the unused qa-transport helper avoids preserving a dead private surface.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 18b2ff683fd3.

Label justifications:

• P2: This is bounded QA infrastructure with limited product-runtime blast radius but meaningful maintainer automation impact.
• merge-risk: 🚨 automation: The diff changes the script-backed QA Docker lane adapter, scenario dispatch path, and lane discovery behavior used by QA automation.
• 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: Not applicable: this is a member-authored, maintainer-labeled internal QA infrastructure PR, so the external-contributor real behavior proof gate does not apply.

PR surface:

Source -170, Tests +142, Other -90. Total -118 across 19 files.

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: Root and scoped AGENTS.md files for extensions, scripts, and tests were read; the maintainer-protected PR rule and QA/script review depth guidance affected the keep-open review. (AGENTS.md:1, 18b2ff683fd3)
• Live PR state: Live GitHub metadata shows the PR is open, mergeable, not draft, at head f076d15, and labeled maintainer plus merge-risk automation. (f076d15f39d6)
• Current main adapter behavior: Current main keeps the Docker lane adapter under scripts/qa, with a fixed lane map and only --lane parsing. (scripts/qa/docker-e2e-lane.ts:9, 18b2ff683fd3)
• PR head adapter behavior: The PR head introduces a QA-owned fixture with the expanded lane registry plus --help and --list parsing before dispatch. (test/e2e/qa-lab/runtime/docker-e2e-lane.fixture.ts:21, f076d15f39d6)
• Scenario runner contract: QA Lab script scenarios already execute repo-relative TypeScript paths through node --import tsx, so the moved adapter remains on the supported scenario execution path. (extensions/qa-lab/src/test-file-scenario-runner.ts:153, 18b2ff683fd3)
• Removed helper usage: Repository search found the deleted qa-transport-scenarios helper only in its own test and the re-export this PR removes, not in a public qa-lab API barrel. (extensions/qa-lab/src/live-transports/shared/live-transport-scenarios.ts:19, 18b2ff683fd3)

Likely related people:

• RomneyDa: Recent merged history added the ClawHub QA Docker scenario mapping and the QA transport scenario helper that this PR narrows or removes. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: beab0ecb02dd, 843ad143647e; files: qa/scenarios/plugins/clawhub-marketplace-list.yaml, extensions/qa-lab/src/qa-transport-scenarios.ts, extensions/qa-lab/src/live-transports/shared/live-transport-scenarios.ts)
• Harjoth Khara: Current-main blame attributes the original scripts/qa Docker lane adapter scaffold and dispatch logic to commit 355c43f. (role: introduced wrapper scaffold; confidence: medium; commits: 355c43fe0c9e; files: scripts/qa/docker-e2e-lane.ts)

• 🦀 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.

• 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.