fix(workflow): make direct PR webhook intake canonical

[brokemac79]

Summary

• Makes the direct GitHub App pull_request webhook the canonical exact-review ingress for PR events.
• Prevents the legacy pull_request_target repository-dispatch compatibility path from creating a second durable review intent, runner, and queue handoff.
• Keeps distinct later PR deliveries (synchronize and edited) and maintainer issue_comment commands eligible.

Problem and evidence

One OpenClaw PR push entered the durable exact-review control plane twice:

• openclaw/openclaw#110767 received head a1e94e165a58a0ac86ec30744ddca8499937e3d3 at 10:19 UTC.
• The direct GitHub App webhook run (29683139308) had sourceEvent=pull_request, sourceAction=synchronize, performed the real review, and queued publication.
• The legacy compatibility run (29683141001) originated from pull_request_target and durably enqueued the same intent again.
• A later duplicate (29683229621) deferred on the same-head lease, but only after consuming control-plane work.

This is ingress duplication, not a head-SHA dedupe problem: later body edits, revisions, and maintainer commands can be meaningful and must continue to enqueue.

Implementation

The legacy queue-intake job now skips only a repository-dispatch payload whose pair is:

source_event = pull_request_target
item_kind    = pull_request

The guard is at the job condition, before runner allocation and before the durable enqueue request. It does not suppress direct pull_request webhook deliveries, issues, or issue_comment command flows.

The regression coverage:

• models the direct-plus-legacy route boundary and asserts that only the legacy pull_request_target PR route is excluded;
• sends two independent direct GitHub webhook deliveries for the same PR: synchronize followed by edited, and verifies the queue records revision 2 with the later body-update decision;
• retains the existing command-path tests for issue_comment maintainer review commands.

Relationship to #674 and terminal behavior

Draft #674 owns the per-item generation, live terminal-target checks, and terminal reconciliation work. It does not address duplicate direct-plus-legacy ingress. This PR deliberately avoids duplicating or conflicting with #674; prompt terminalization/supersession of closed or merged targets remains its dependency and should land through #674.

Validation

pnpm run build:all
node --test test/clawsweeper.test.ts test/dashboard-worker.test.ts
# 230 passed, 0 failed

pnpm exec oxfmt --check .github/workflows/sweep.yml test/clawsweeper.test.ts test/dashboard-worker.test.ts
git diff --check
# YAML parse and extracted legacy-intake Bash syntax check passed

actionlint is unavailable on this host. The workflow change is a GitHub-expression-only job guard; the existing legacy intake script was extracted from YAML and passed bash -n.

Codex review closeout:

codex review --uncommitted
codex review --base origin/main

Both completed with no accepted or actionable findings. The second review ran after rebasing onto current origin/main (639d459f22).

Risk and rollout

The direct GitHub App webhook is already the source that completed the observed PR review. After deployment, only the redundant legacy pull_request_target compatibility delivery is skipped; a new direct webhook delivery remains a separate durable intent. No gate, dispatch, review, label, or merge behavior changes.

This touches .github/workflows/sweep.yml, so GitHub OAuth/workflow-scope policy may require a maintainer-owned replacement branch in environments that reject workflow-file updates. No new permissions or token scopes are requested.

[brokemac79]

@clawsweeper 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 item is closed; no stale verdict was published.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/29690097332
• Updated: 2026-07-19T14:06:06.682Z

[steipete]

Closing after maintainer deep review. The duplicate-ingress evidence is credible, but this guard removes a documented reliability boundary rather than deduplicating it.

docs/target-dispatcher.md explicitly keeps the Actions dispatcher as a compatibility fallback and bridges its legacy delivery into the durable queue. Skipping every pull_request_target PR dispatch before queue admission means a missing or delayed direct GitHub App webhook now loses the event entirely. The production example proves that both routes can arrive; it does not prove that the direct route always arrives.

The safe shape is semantic cross-route dedupe at the durable queue boundary: coalesce a matching direct and legacy delivery, while still admitting a legacy-only delivery and preserving later synchronize, edited, and maintainer-command revisions. That changes queue policy and needs a separate maintainer decision/proof contract, so I am not widening this PR into it.

Author context was positive: @brokemac79 is a write collaborator/read-only maintainer with a substantial history of merged ClawSweeper queue fixes. This close is about the fallback ownership boundary, not contributor quality.