PR #74825: docs(sdk): clarify app and plugin sdk boundary

• Repository: openclaw/openclaw
• Author: gazeatcode
• State: open | merged: False
• Link: https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/pull/74825

Description (problem / solution / changelog)

Summary

• Problem: the App SDK and Plugin SDK docs already mention the split, but the boundary is easy to miss when writing quickstarts or OpenMeow/OpenCoven-style examples.
• Why it matters: external apps should talk to Gateway through @openclaw/sdk, while trusted in-process plugins should use openclaw/plugin-sdk/*; mixing these contracts leaks internals into public examples.
• What changed: added an App SDK boundary checklist, a Plugin SDK runtime/boundary table, and API-design guidance that keeps OpenMeow/OpenCoven examples on the external client side.
• What did NOT change (scope boundary): no SDK code, Gateway behavior, plugin contracts, or generated API surfaces changed.

Change Type (select all)

• Bug fix
• Feature
• Refactor required for the fix
• Docs
• Security hardening
• Chore/infra

Scope (select all touched areas)

• Gateway / orchestration
• Skills / tool execution
• Auth / tokens
• Memory / storage
• Integrations
• API / contracts
• UI / DX
• CI/CD / infra

Linked Issue/PR

• Closes #74709
• Related #
• This PR fixes a bug or regression

Root Cause (if applicable)

N/A

• Root cause: N/A
• Missing detection / guardrail: N/A
• Contributing context (if known): N/A

Regression Test Plan (if applicable)

N/A

• Coverage level that should have caught this:
  • Unit test
  • Seam / integration test
  • End-to-end test
  • Existing coverage already sufficient
• Target test or file: docs checks only.
• Scenario the test should lock in: docs formatting, linting, MDX validity, i18n glossary coverage, and internal links remain valid.
• Why this is the smallest reliable guardrail: the change is documentation-only.
• Existing test that already covers this (if any): pnpm check:docs.
• If no new test is added, why not: docs-only clarification.

User-visible / Behavior Changes

Docs now explicitly state that external apps, dashboards, scripts, IDE extensions, and OpenMeow/OpenCoven-style examples use @openclaw/sdk over Gateway, while provider/channel/tool/hook/runtime extensions use openclaw/plugin-sdk/* inside OpenClaw.

Diagram (if applicable)

External app/docs example -> @openclaw/sdk -> Gateway RPC/events -> OpenClaw runtime
Trusted plugin code       -> openclaw/plugin-sdk/* -> host registration APIs

Security Impact (required)

• New permissions/capabilities? (Yes/No) No
• Secrets/tokens handling changed? (Yes/No) No
• New/changed network calls? (Yes/No) No
• Command/tool execution surface changed? (Yes/No) No
• Data access scope changed? (Yes/No) No
• If any Yes, explain risk + mitigation: N/A

Repro + Verification

Environment

• OS: Linux
• Runtime/container: Node 22 / pnpm repo scripts
• Model/provider: N/A
• Integration/channel (if any): docs
• Relevant config (redacted): N/A

Steps

1. Read docs/concepts/openclaw-sdk.md.
2. Read docs/plugins/sdk-overview.md.
3. Read docs/reference/openclaw-sdk-api-design.md.

Expected

• App SDK docs clearly say @openclaw/sdk is for outside-process clients.
• Plugin SDK docs clearly say openclaw/plugin-sdk/* is for trusted in-process plugin runtime code.
• Cross-links and OpenMeow/OpenCoven guidance keep future examples on the correct side of the boundary.

Actual

• Before this PR, the boundary existed but was less explicit in quickstart/example guidance.

Evidence

• Failing test/log before + passing after
• Trace/log snippets
• Screenshot/recording
• Perf numbers (if relevant)

Human Verification (required)

What you personally verified (not just CI), and how:

• Verified scenarios: pnpm check:docs; git diff --check upstream/main..HEAD.
• Edge cases checked: docs formatter, markdown lint, MDX validation, zh-CN glossary entries required by the docs gate, and internal link audit.
• What you did not verify: rendered Mintlify preview.

Review Conversations

• I replied to or resolved every bot review conversation I addressed in this PR.
• I left unresolved only the conversations that still need reviewer or maintainer judgment.

Compatibility / Migration

• Backward compatible? (Yes/No) Yes
• Config/env changes? (Yes/No) No
• Migration needed? (Yes/No) No
• If yes, exact upgrade steps: N/A

Risks and Mitigations

None.

Changed files

• docs/.i18n/glossary.zh-CN.json (modified, +40/-0)
• docs/concepts/openclaw-sdk.md (modified, +24/-1)
• docs/plugins/sdk-overview.md (modified, +21/-0)
• docs/reference/openclaw-sdk-api-design.md (modified, +6/-0)

PR #74847: feat(gateway): add SDK task ledger RPCs

• Repository: openclaw/openclaw
• Author: tmimmanuel
• State: open | merged: False
• Link: https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/pull/74847

Description (problem / solution / changelog)

Summary

• Problem: @openclaw/sdk exposed oc.tasks.*, but list, get, and cancel still threw unsupported errors because Gateway had no SDK-facing task ledger RPCs.
• Why it matters: OpenMeow and other app clients need stable task visibility for detached/background work without reading internal logs or CLI-only surfaces.
• What changed: Added tasks.list, tasks.get, and tasks.cancel Gateway RPCs, SDK methods/types, protocol schemas, scopes, docs, and regression coverage.
• What did NOT change (scope boundary): This does not add tool invocation, artifact APIs, environment provisioning, or new task runtime semantics.

Change Type (select all)

• Bug fix
• Feature
• Refactor required for the fix
• Docs
• Security hardening
• Chore/infra

Scope (select all touched areas)

• Gateway / orchestration
• Skills / tool execution
• Auth / tokens
• Memory / storage
• Integrations
• API / contracts
• UI / DX
• CI/CD / infra

Linked Issue/PR

• Closes #74707
• Related #74704
• Related #74705
• Related #74706
• Related #74708
• Related #74709
• Related https://github.com/OpenCoven/open-meow-sdk
• This PR fixes a bug or regression

Root Cause (if applicable)

• Root cause: Gateway already had a durable task registry, but no public RPC contract or SDK bridge exposed it to external app clients.
• Missing detection / guardrail: SDK coverage only locked in unsupported task errors instead of the app-client task ledger contract.
• Contributing context (if known): The OpenMeow gap map calls out tasks.list, tasks.get, and tasks.cancel as missing basics.

Regression Test Plan (if applicable)

• Coverage level that should have caught this: Unit test and seam / integration test.
• Target test or file: src/gateway/server-methods/tasks.test.ts, src/gateway/protocol/index.test.ts, packages/sdk/src/index.test.ts, packages/sdk/src/index.e2e.test.ts.
• Scenario the test should lock in: SDK task methods route to Gateway RPCs, task statuses are app-facing and stable, filters work, scopes are classified, and cancel returns a clear result contract.
• Why this is the smallest reliable guardrail: It exercises the protocol and SDK seams without requiring a live detached task runtime.
• Existing test that already covers this (if any): Existing task registry tests cover the underlying task lifecycle.
• If no new test is added, why not: N/A.

User-visible / Behavior Changes

oc.tasks.list(), oc.tasks.get(taskId), and oc.tasks.cancel(taskId) now call Gateway task ledger RPCs instead of throwing unsupported errors.

Diagram (if applicable)

Before:
[external app] -> [@openclaw/sdk oc.tasks.*] -> [unsupported error]

After:
[external app] -> [@openclaw/sdk oc.tasks.*] -> [Gateway tasks.* RPC] -> [durable task registry]

Security Impact (required)

• New permissions/capabilities? (Yes/No) Yes
• Secrets/tokens handling changed? (Yes/No) No
• New/changed network calls? (Yes/No) No
• Command/tool execution surface changed? (Yes/No) No
• Data access scope changed? (Yes/No) Yes
• If any Yes, explain risk + mitigation: tasks.list and tasks.get require operator.read; tasks.cancel requires operator.write. The RPCs expose task metadata from the existing durable task registry and do not expose secrets.

Repro + Verification

Environment

• OS: Ubuntu/Linux local workspace
• Runtime/container: Node 22.22.0 via nvm, pnpm 10.33.2
• Model/provider: N/A
• Integration/channel (if any): Gateway WebSocket RPC / @openclaw/sdk
• Relevant config (redacted): N/A

Steps

1. On current main, call oc.tasks.list(), oc.tasks.get("task-id"), or oc.tasks.cancel("task-id").
2. Observe the SDK unsupported error.
3. Apply this PR.
4. Call the same SDK methods against a Gateway with task records.

Expected

• SDK task methods route to Gateway task ledger RPCs and return stable task summaries or cancel results.

Actual

• Before this PR, SDK task methods throw unsupported errors.

Evidence

• Failing test/log before + passing after
• Trace/log snippets
• Screenshot/recording
• Perf numbers (if relevant)

Lint evidence:

• git diff --check HEAD~1 HEAD
• targeted oxlint on changed TS files
• markdownlint-cli2 docs/concepts/openclaw-sdk.md

Review Conversations

• I replied to or resolved every bot review conversation I addressed in this PR.
• I left unresolved only the conversations that still need reviewer or maintainer judgment.

Compatibility / Migration

• Backward compatible? (Yes/No) Yes
• Config/env changes? (Yes/No) No
• Migration needed? (Yes/No) No
• If yes, exact upgrade steps: N/A

Risks and Mitigations

• Risk: SDK-facing task statuses intentionally differ from internal registry statuses.
• Mitigation: Tests lock in the public mapping, including succeeded to completed and lost to failed.

Changed files

• apps/macos/Sources/OpenClawProtocol/GatewayModels.swift (modified, +214/-0)
• apps/shared/OpenClawKit/Sources/OpenClawProtocol/GatewayModels.swift (modified, +214/-0)
• docs/concepts/openclaw-sdk.md (modified, +12/-5)
• packages/sdk/src/client.ts (modified, +13/-9)
• packages/sdk/src/index.e2e.test.ts (modified, +54/-0)
• packages/sdk/src/index.test.ts (modified, +64/-9)
• packages/sdk/src/index.ts (modified, +6/-0)
• packages/sdk/src/types.ts (modified, +50/-0)
• src/gateway/method-scopes.test.ts (modified, +3/-0)
• src/gateway/method-scopes.ts (modified, +3/-0)
• src/gateway/protocol/index.test.ts (modified, +21/-0)
• src/gateway/protocol/index.ts (modified, +31/-0)
• src/gateway/protocol/schema.ts (modified, +1/-0)
• src/gateway/protocol/schema/protocol-schemas.ts (modified, +16/-0)
• src/gateway/protocol/schema/tasks.ts (added, +91/-0)
• src/gateway/protocol/schema/types.ts (modified, +7/-0)
• src/gateway/server-methods-list.ts (modified, +3/-0)
• src/gateway/server-methods.ts (modified, +2/-0)
• src/gateway/server-methods/tasks.test.ts (added, +167/-0)
• src/gateway/server-methods/tasks.ts (added, +205/-0)
• src/tasks/detached-task-runtime-contract.ts (modified, +1/-0)
• src/tasks/task-registry.ts (modified, +5/-2)