docs(site): surface newer provider cards

[kiranmagic7]

Summary

• add landing-page provider cards for Alibaba Token Plan, Devin, and T3 Chat
• link each card to existing provider docs so the homepage reflects current documented support
• reuse existing card styles and local assets without adding new media

Tests

• git diff --check
• parsed docs/index.html with Python HTMLParser and checked local image references exist

Risk

• Docs/site-only change. No runtime provider behavior changes.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed June 14, 2026, 6:55 AM ET / 10:55 UTC.

Summary
The PR adds Alibaba Token Plan, Devin, and T3 Chat cards to the docs landing-page provider grid in docs/index.html.

Reproducibility: not applicable. this is a docs-only PR review, not a bug report. Static source inspection verifies the added links and target documentation paths/anchor.

Review metrics: 2 noteworthy metrics.

• Changed surface: 1 docs file changed. The patch is limited to the static docs landing page, so runtime blast radius is minimal.
• Provider cards: 3 added, 0 removed. Maintainers only need to decide whether these already-documented providers should appear on the homepage.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🐚 platinum hermit
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🐚 platinum hermit
Result: ready for maintainer review.

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

Rank-up moves:

• none.

Next step before merge

• [P2] No repair lane is needed because the one-file docs patch has no actionable defect; maintainers can make the normal merge decision.

Security
Cleared: The diff is limited to static HTML links and labels under docs/, with no scripts, dependencies, workflows, secrets, or build/release surfaces changed.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Merge the narrow docs update once the repository's normal checks and maintainer approval are satisfied.

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

Not applicable; this is a docs-only PR review, not a bug report. Static source inspection verifies the added links and target documentation paths/anchor.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes; adding cards to the existing provider grid is the narrowest maintainable docs-site change for surfacing already-documented providers without touching runtime provider behavior.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 6c409f7644b3.

Label changes

Label justifications:

• P3: This is low-risk documentation polish for existing provider docs, with no 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: Real behavior proof is not required because this PR only changes files under docs/.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• PR diff is narrow: The branch changes only docs/index.html, adding three provider cards and no scripts, workflows, dependencies, or runtime code. (docs/index.html:118, 9ebbd1786f81)
• Target docs exist: Current main already has provider docs for Alibaba Token Plan and Devin, with setup/auth content matching the new card labels. (docs/alibaba-token-plan.md:9, 6c409f7644b3)
• T3 anchor exists: Current main documents ## T3 Chat in docs/providers.md, which resolves to the #t3-chat anchor used by the new card. (docs/providers.md:262, 6c409f7644b3)
• Docs grid history: git blame shows the existing provider grid and related provider docs came from 9d3c354d, so the PR is extending an established docs surface rather than adding a new runtime path. (docs/index.html:100, 9d3c354df9ba)
• Maintainer and Codex review context: GitHub metadata shows the PR is mergeable, still open, changes only docs/index.html, and the latest Codex review on head 9ebbd1786f found no major issues after maintainer-reported DocumentationLinkTests, make check, and diff-check proof. (9ebbd1786f81)
• Repository policy read: AGENTS.md was read in full and its docs/test guidance informed the review; the read-only review contract prevented running artifact-producing checks directly. (AGENTS.md:1, 6c409f7644b3)

Likely related people:

• steipete: git blame ties the current provider grid and the target provider docs to 9d3c354d, and PR comments show recent maintainer rebase/review work on this docs surface. (role: docs landing-page introducer and recent reviewer; confidence: high; commits: 9d3c354df9ba; files: docs/index.html, docs/alibaba-token-plan.md, docs/devin.md)
• kiranmagic7: Current main contains e6e84a6b, which added DocumentationLinkTests; that test area is directly relevant to validating this docs-link PR, independent of the author opening this branch. (role: recent docs-link test contributor; confidence: medium; commits: e6e84a6b4bf6; files: Tests/CodexBarTests/DocumentationLinkTests.swift)

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.

[steipete]

Rebased onto current main and verified the provider names, auth labels, target docs, and T3 Chat anchor against the current source tree.

Proof on exact head 650dd0a4:

• git diff --check origin/main...HEAD
• xmllint --html --noout docs/index.html
• make check
• local branch autoreview: clean, no actionable findings

@codex review
@clawsweeper re-review

[clawsweeper]

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: the existing ClawSweeper review comment will be edited in place when the review finishes.

Re-review progress:

• State: Complete
• Detail: The targeted re-review finished, the durable review comment was updated, and the synced verdict was routed.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/27490109452
• Updated: 2026-06-14T06:05:06.371Z

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Swish!

Reviewed commit: 650dd0a4c2

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".

[steipete]

Maintainer rebase onto 9490a8d5; exact head db1b8a31.

• linked provider docs and T3 Chat anchor verified
• swift test --filter DocumentationLinkTests — 8 tests passed
• make check — clean
• branch autoreview against origin/main — no accepted/actionable findings

@codex review
@clawsweeper re-review

[clawsweeper]

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: the existing ClawSweeper review comment will be edited in place when the review finishes.

Re-review progress:

• State: Complete
• Detail: The targeted re-review finished, the durable review comment was updated, and the synced verdict was routed.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/27492613605
• Updated: 2026-06-14T08:04:37.256Z

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Something went wrong. Try again later by commenting “@codex review”.

Unknown error

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]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep them coming!

Reviewed commit: db1b8a31a9

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".

[steipete]

Final maintainer rebase onto c33ecd67; exact head a4ba20f6.

• swift test --filter DocumentationLinkTests — 8 tests passed
• make check — clean
• branch autoreview against origin/main — no accepted/actionable findings
• provider docs and T3 Chat anchor verified

@codex review
@clawsweeper re-review

[clawsweeper]

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: the existing ClawSweeper review comment will be edited in place when the review finishes.

Re-review progress:

• State: Complete
• Detail: The targeted re-review finished, the durable review comment was updated, and the synced verdict was routed.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/27493483718
• Updated: 2026-06-14T08:43:19.826Z

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep it up!

Reviewed commit: a4ba20f660

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".

[steipete]

Maintainer rebase completed onto 6c409f76.

Reviewed exact head: 9ebbd1786f81a9aa4c5ec0cc225f6c36283cbe65

Local proof:

• swift test --filter DocumentationLinkTests (8 passed)
• make check
• git diff --check main...HEAD
• autoreview clean

@codex review
@clawsweeper re-review

[clawsweeper]

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: the existing ClawSweeper review comment will be edited in place when the review finishes.

Re-review progress:

• State: Complete
• Detail: The targeted re-review finished, the durable review comment was updated, and the synced verdict was routed.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/27496501317
• Updated: 2026-06-14T10:56:05.088Z

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Can't wait for the next one!

Reviewed commit: 9ebbd1786f

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".