openclaw - 💡(How to fix) Fix [Bug]: Built-in plugins (minimax, google, talk-voice) fail with RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded on Windows [1 comments, 2 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Paste a GitHub issue URL. We fetch that issue, discover linked issues from bodies/comments/timeline, collect linked pull requests, and produce a structured English report.

The report is written in English Markdown for sharing and archival.

Helpful · Quick feedback

Loading…
GitHub stats
openclaw/openclaw#73859Fetched 2026-04-29 06:14:09
View on GitHub
Comments
1
Participants
2
Timeline
1
Reactions
0
Author
Timeline (top)
commented ×1

Error Message

[plugins] minimax failed to load from .../openclaw/dist/extensions/minimax/index.js: RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded [plugins] google failed to load from .../openclaw/dist/extensions/google/index.js: RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded [plugins] talk-voice failed to load from .../openclaw/dist/extensions/talk-voice/index.js: RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded

Root Cause

After investigation, the root cause is: the ESM import chain for these bundled plugins is extremely deep (index.js → 20+ shared chunks → cross-references between chunks), which exhausts the Node.js default call stack size during module resolution.

Verification: Loading the same module with --stack-size=65536 succeeds without errors.

node --stack-size=65536 -e require("./minimax/index.js")  # succeeds
node -e require("./minimax/index.js")  # fails with RangeError

Fix Action

Workaround

Setting NODE_OPTIONS=--stack-size=65536 (user-level environment variable) resolves the issue, but requires a Gateway restart to take effect.

Code Example

[plugins] minimax failed to load from .../openclaw/dist/extensions/minimax/index.js: RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
[plugins] google failed to load from .../openclaw/dist/extensions/google/index.js: RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
[plugins] talk-voice failed to load from .../openclaw/dist/extensions/talk-voice/index.js: RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded

---

node --stack-size=65536 -e require("./minimax/index.js")  # succeeds
node -e require("./minimax/index.js")  # fails with RangeError
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Describe the bug

Multiple built-in plugins fail to load at Gateway startup with RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded. This affects the following plugins:

  • minimax
  • google
  • talk-voice

Error Log

[plugins] minimax failed to load from .../openclaw/dist/extensions/minimax/index.js: RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
[plugins] google failed to load from .../openclaw/dist/extensions/google/index.js: RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
[plugins] talk-voice failed to load from .../openclaw/dist/extensions/talk-voice/index.js: RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded

Environment

  • OS: Windows_NT 10.0.20348 (x64) / Windows Server 2019
  • Node.js: v24.14.1
  • OpenClaw: v2026.4.26
  • Deployment: Local (npm global install)

Root Cause Analysis

After investigation, the root cause is: the ESM import chain for these bundled plugins is extremely deep (index.js → 20+ shared chunks → cross-references between chunks), which exhausts the Node.js default call stack size during module resolution.

Verification: Loading the same module with --stack-size=65536 succeeds without errors.

node --stack-size=65536 -e require("./minimax/index.js")  # succeeds
node -e require("./minimax/index.js")  # fails with RangeError

Workaround

Setting NODE_OPTIONS=--stack-size=65536 (user-level environment variable) resolves the issue, but requires a Gateway restart to take effect.

Suggested Fix

  1. Reduce the depth of the ESM import chain for these plugins (bundle optimization / chunk merging)
  2. Or set a higher default stack size in the Gateway launcher for Windows environments
  3. Or catch the error gracefully and skip the plugin with a warning instead of crashing

Impact

  • These plugins are completely non-functional
  • Workaround requires environment variable change + Gateway restart
  • Affects all Windows deployments with these bundled plugins

extent analysis

TL;DR

Setting the NODE_OPTIONS environment variable to --stack-size=65536 resolves the issue by increasing the Node.js default call stack size.

Guidance

  • Verify the issue is resolved by loading a problematic module with an increased stack size using node --stack-size=65536 -e require("./minimax/index.js").
  • To apply the fix, set the NODE_OPTIONS environment variable to --stack-size=65536 and restart the Gateway.
  • Consider reducing the depth of the ESM import chain for the affected plugins as a long-term solution to avoid similar issues.
  • Alternatively, catching the error and skipping the plugin with a warning can prevent the Gateway from crashing.

Example

No code snippet is necessary in this case, as the solution involves environment variable changes and potential code optimizations.

Notes

The provided workaround requires a Gateway restart to take effect and may not be suitable for all environments. Reducing the import chain depth or setting a higher default stack size in the Gateway launcher may be more robust solutions.

Recommendation

Apply the workaround by setting NODE_OPTIONS=--stack-size=65536, as it provides a quick and effective solution to the issue, allowing the Gateway to function with the affected plugins.

Vote matrix · Quick signals

Works
Did the solution work? Tap to confirm.
Easy Fix
Was it a quick fix?
Time Saver
Did it save you time?
Blocking
Was it severely blocking?
Common Issue
Are others likely hitting this too?
Flaky / Intermittent
Is it intermittent?
Verified / Reproducible
Can you reproduce it reliably?
Loading…

Still need to ship something?

×6

Another batch ranked right after the header list — different links, same matching logic.

Back to top recommendations

TRENDING

openclaw - 💡(How to fix) Fix [Bug]: Built-in plugins (minimax, google, talk-voice) fail with RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded on Windows [1 comments, 2 participants]