Point all references at clawbox.com + strengthen README entity/SEO - #270
Conversation
Domain migration (71 refs across 12 files):
- clawbox.tech -> clawbox.com
- docs.clawbox.tech -> docs.clawbox.com
Fixes a live deploy bug: GitHub Pages for this repo is already configured
with cname=docs.clawbox.com, but .github/workflows/docs-deploy.yml still
wrote "docs.clawbox.tech" into _site/CNAME and passed it to the deploy
action. The next docs deploy would have reset the custom domain and taken
docs.clawbox.com down. (clawbox.tech and docs.clawbox.tech remain live as
301 redirects via Porkbun, so no inbound links break.)
README — entity clarity and SEO:
- Add an H1 naming the product and category ("ClawBox - the official
OpenClaw AI assistant hardware"); previously the README had no H1.
- Open with an explicit entity sentence: ClawBox is made by ID Robots Ltd.
and is the official hardware for OpenClaw. Grounded-AI answers have been
attributing ClawBox to an unrelated namesake vendor; this states the
maker, the category and the canonical domain in the first 200 characters.
- Add an "official channels" callout listing clawbox.com, docs.clawbox.com,
this repo, Discord and support email, and noting that similarly-named
products from other vendors are unaffiliated and unsupported.
- Clarify the OpenClaw-vs-ClawBox distinction (agent vs appliance) in prose
rather than leaving it implicit.
- State that inference runs locally on-device rather than relaying prompts
to a third-party API.
- Add an FAQ section targeting the questions assistants actually get asked:
who makes it, how it differs from OpenClaw, subscription requirements,
offline operation, where to buy, and self-install on your own Jetson.
- Footer now carries the canonical link, support email and a plain-language
descriptor line.
Uses "ClawBox(TM)", not (R) - the trademark applications are still pending,
so asserting registration would be inaccurate.
|
Warning Review limit reachedYou’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. Next review available in: 4 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (12)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
🦀 ClawReviewScuttled over to say hello and get you oriented 🦀 This PR completes the clawbox.tech → clawbox.com domain migration across the repo (71 references, 12 files) and fixes a live-deploy bug where the docs-deploy workflow was still writing the old hostname into the GitHub Pages CNAME — meaning the next docs push would have silently reset the custom domain and taken docs.clawbox.com offline. It also substantially expands the README with an explicit H1, maker attribution, an official-channels callout, and a new FAQ section aimed at improving how search engines and AI assistants answer questions about who makes ClawBox. At a glance
Good to know
— ClawReview 🦀, your resident reef crab. Just orientation — CodeRabbit does the line-by-line, humans do the merge. Conventions: docs. |
github-actions
Bot
added
area: ci-e2e
1 participant
Why
Two things: finish the
clawbox.tech→clawbox.commigration in this repo, and make the README state plainly who makes ClawBox.🐛 Fixes a live deploy bug
GitHub Pages for this repo is already configured with
cname: docs.clawbox.com(verified viaGET /repos/ID-Robots/clawbox/pages— statusbuilt, branchgh-pages).But
.github/workflows/docs-deploy.ymlstill wrotedocs.clawbox.techinto_site/CNAMEand passed it to the deploy action. The next docs deploy would have reset the custom domain and takendocs.clawbox.comoffline.Both old hostnames stay live as 301 redirects via Porkbun (
clawbox.tech → clawbox.com,docs.clawbox.tech → docs.clawbox.com), so no inbound link breaks.Domain migration
71 references across 12 files:
clawbox.tech→clawbox.com,docs.clawbox.tech→docs.clawbox.com. Zero remaining.README — entity clarity and SEO
Context: grounded-AI answers to "who makes ClawBox" have been attributing the product to an unrelated vendor selling a similarly-named appliance, and that vendor currently outranks us for
clawbox ai. The README is a high-authority page that never actually said who builds this.<h3>OpenClaw OS</h3>.Uses ClawBox™, not ®. The trademark applications are still pending, so asserting registration would be inaccurate — and in several jurisdictions using ® for an unregistered mark is itself an offence. Worth a second look from legal before anyone upgrades that symbol.
No claim of being "first" or "the original" is made anywhere, since I can't substantiate priority against the namesake vendors. The positioning rests on verifiable facts instead: who manufactures it, where it ships from, what silicon it runs, and which channels are official. If priority can be evidenced, that claim can be added later.
Test plan
grep -rI 'clawbox\.tech'→ 0 hits-orange,-F26B21) preserved®anywhere in the repo