Issue Station
Sign In
Tools hereToolbox

openclaw - ✅(Solved) Fix [Feature]: Discord: Thread-specific requireMention configuration [1 pull requests, 2 comments, 3 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

Recommended Tools

×6

Utilities matched from this issue’s tags and category — try them while you read without losing context.

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#75938•Fetched 2026-05-03 04:44:08
View on GitHub
Comments
2
Participants
3
Timeline
5
Reactions
2
Author
konfookonfoo
Participants
clawsweeper[bot]clawsweeper[bot]konfookonfoosymonbaikovsymonbaikov
Timeline (top)
commented ×2cross-referenced ×1labeled ×1referenced ×1

Add thread-specific requireMention configuration for Discord channels to allow different mention requirements between threads and parent channels.

Root Cause

Add thread-specific requireMention configuration for Discord channels to allow different mention requirements between threads and parent channels.

Fix Action

Fix / Workaround

Currently, requireMention applies globally to entire channels, making this distinction impossible. Users must choose between:

  1. Noisy main channels (requireMention: false everywhere)
  2. Cumbersome threads (requireMention: true everywhere)
  3. Unreliable agent-side workarounds that cause UX issues

Severity: Medium - Current workarounds are functional but create UX degradation Frequency: Daily - Every thread conversation requires @mention spam or causes confusion

Workaround issues: Tested agent-side filtering - defining restriction inside AGENTS.md not to react on main channel without explicit @mention - causes typing indicators in main channels even when NO_REPLY is returned.

PR fix notes

PR #76058: feat(discord): per-channel thread.requireMention override

Description (problem / solution / changelog)

Add a backwards-compatible thread.requireMention field on Discord guild channel configs so threads under a parent channel can run with a different mention requirement than the parent itself. Bot-owned auto-thread bypass keeps priority over the new override.

Closes #75938

Summary

Describe the problem and fix in 2–5 bullets:

If this PR fixes a plugin beta-release blocker, title it fix(<plugin-id>): beta blocker - <summary> and link the matching Beta blocker: <plugin-name> - <summary> issue labeled beta-blocker. Contributors cannot label PRs, so the title is the PR-side signal for maintainers and automation.

  • Problem:
  • Why it matters:
  • What changed:
  • What did NOT change (scope boundary):

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

Root Cause (if applicable)

For bug fixes or regressions, explain why this happened, not just what changed. Otherwise write N/A. If the cause is unclear, write Unknown.

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

Regression Test Plan (if applicable)

For bug fixes or regressions, name the smallest reliable test coverage that should catch this. Otherwise write 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:
  • Scenario the test should lock in:
  • Why this is the smallest reliable guardrail:
  • Existing test that already covers this (if any):
  • If no new test is added, why not:

User-visible / Behavior Changes

List user-visible changes (including defaults/config).
If none, write None.

Diagram (if applicable)

For UI changes or non-trivial logic flows, include a small ASCII diagram reviewers can scan quickly. Otherwise write N/A.

Before:
[user action] -> [old state]

After:
[user action] -> [new state] -> [result]

Security Impact (required)

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

Repro + Verification

Environment

  • OS:
  • Runtime/container:
  • Model/provider:
  • Integration/channel (if any):
  • Relevant config (redacted):

Steps

Expected

Actual

Evidence

Attach at least one:

  • 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:
  • Edge cases checked:
  • What you did not verify:

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.

If a bot review conversation is addressed by this PR, resolve that conversation yourself. Do not leave bot review conversation cleanup for maintainers.

Compatibility / Migration

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

Risks and Mitigations

List only real risks for this PR. Add/remove entries as needed. If none, write None.

  • Risk:
    • Mitigation:

Changed files

  • CHANGELOG.md (modified, +1/-0)
  • docs/.generated/config-baseline.sha256 (modified, +2/-2)
  • docs/.generated/plugin-sdk-api-baseline.sha256 (modified, +2/-2)
  • docs/channels/discord.md (modified, +23/-0)
  • extensions/discord/src/config-schema.test.ts (modified, +34/-0)
  • extensions/discord/src/monitor.test.ts (modified, +111/-0)
  • extensions/discord/src/monitor/allow-list.ts (modified, +12/-0)
  • src/config/bundled-channel-config-metadata.generated.ts (modified, +18/-0)
  • src/config/types.discord.ts (modified, +10/-0)
  • src/config/zod-schema.providers-core.ts (modified, +8/-0)

Code Example

"channels": {
  "123456789": {
    "requireMention": true,
    "thread": {
      "requireMention": false
    }
  }
}

---

"channels": {
  "thread_id_1": { "requireMention": false },
  "thread_id_2": { "requireMention": false }
}

---

if (!thread_context && !was_mentioned) return NO_REPLY;

---

{
  "thread_label": "Discord thread #general › API Discussion",
  "was_mentioned": false
}

---

[Thread] Dev: @agent Hi, I want your help.
[Thread] Agent: What can I do for you?
[Thread] Dev: How do I authenticate?
[Thread] Agent: Use the API key in your config...
[Thread] Dev: Where exactly?
[Thread] Agent: Under providers.auth.key...

---

[Thread] Dev: @agent Hi, I want your help.
[Thread] Agent: What can I do for you?
[Thread] Dev: How do I authenticate?
[Thread] Dev: @agent How do I authenticate?
[Thread] Agent: Use the API key in your config...
[Thread] Dev: @agent Where exactly?
[Thread] Agent: Under providers.auth.key...
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Summary

Add thread-specific requireMention configuration for Discord channels to allow different mention requirements between threads and parent channels.

Problem to solve

Discord agents need different behavior in threads vs main channels:

  • Threads: Natural conversation without @mention for each response
  • Main channels: Only respond when @mentioned to prevent spam

Currently, requireMention applies globally to entire channels, making this distinction impossible. Users must choose between:

  1. Noisy main channels (requireMention: false everywhere)
  2. Cumbersome threads (requireMention: true everywhere)
  3. Unreliable agent-side workarounds that cause UX issues

Proposed solution

Add thread-aware requireMention configuration:

"channels": {
  "123456789": {
    "requireMention": true,
    "thread": {
      "requireMention": false
    }
  }
}

Key requirement: Thread detection must happen before Discord typing status is sent to prevent confusing "typing..." indicators without responses.

Implementation: Detect thread context from metadata.thread_label Apply thread-specific setting in Discord plugin's preprocessing stage Early exit for filtered messages (no processing, no typing status)

Alternatives considered

Individual thread IDs

"channels": {
  "thread_id_1": { "requireMention": false },
  "thread_id_2": { "requireMention": false }
}

Problems: Thread IDs unknown before creation, doesn't scale, manual maintenance.

Agent-side filtering

if (!thread_context && !was_mentioned) return NO_REPLY;

Problems: Discord typing indicator still appears, unreliable, poor UX.

Guild-wide settings

Problems: Can't distinguish between contexts, forces compromise on behavior.

Impact

Affected users:

  • Development teams using Discord for project coordination
  • Community servers with support channels
  • Any multi-context Discord workspace

Severity: Medium - Current workarounds are functional but create UX degradation Frequency: Daily - Every thread conversation requires @mention spam or causes confusion

Consequences:

  • +30 seconds per response in active threads (manual @mentions)
  • Reduced thread engagement due to friction
  • Confusing "typing..." indicators in main channels with agent filtering
  • Users avoiding thread usage due to poor experience

Evidence/examples

Current Discord metadata shows thread context:

{
  "thread_label": "Discord thread #general › API Discussion",
  "was_mentioned": false
}

Conversation flow comparison:

Desired (with feature):

[Thread] Dev: @agent Hi, I want your help.
[Thread] Agent: What can I do for you?
[Thread] Dev: How do I authenticate?
[Thread] Agent: Use the API key in your config...
[Thread] Dev: Where exactly?
[Thread] Agent: Under providers.auth.key...

Current reality:

[Thread] Dev: @agent Hi, I want your help.
[Thread] Agent: What can I do for you?
[Thread] Dev: How do I authenticate?
[Thread] Dev: @agent How do I authenticate?
[Thread] Agent: Use the API key in your config...
[Thread] Dev: @agent Where exactly?
[Thread] Agent: Under providers.auth.key...

Workaround issues: Tested agent-side filtering - defining restriction inside AGENTS.md not to react on main channel without explicit @mention - causes typing indicators in main channels even when NO_REPLY is returned.

Additional information

Backwards compatibility: Essential - existing configurations must continue working unchanged.

Thread detection: OpenClaw already provides thread context via metadata.thread_label containing "Discord thread".

Performance benefit: Early filtering prevents unnecessary message processing and Discord API calls.

Similar patterns: This follows existing channel-specific configuration patterns in OpenClaw's Discord plugin.

extent analysis

TL;DR

Implement thread-specific requireMention configuration to allow different mention requirements between threads and parent channels.

Guidance

  • Introduce a new configuration option for threads under the channel configuration, as proposed: "thread": { "requireMention": false }.
  • Detect thread context using the metadata.thread_label provided by OpenClaw, and apply the thread-specific requireMention setting during the preprocessing stage of the Discord plugin.
  • Ensure early exit for filtered messages to prevent unnecessary processing and Discord API calls, as well as to avoid sending "typing..." indicators without responses.
  • Test the new configuration with various scenarios, including threads and main channels, to verify the correct application of requireMention settings.

Example

"channels": {
  "123456789": {
    "requireMention": true,
    "thread": {
      "requireMention": false
    }
  }
}

Notes

The proposed solution aims to address the issue without introducing significant backwards compatibility concerns, as it builds upon existing configuration patterns in OpenClaw's Discord plugin. However, thorough testing is necessary to ensure seamless integration with current functionalities.

Recommendation

Apply the proposed workaround by introducing thread-specific requireMention configuration, as it directly addresses the need for different mention requirements in threads versus main channels, improving user experience and reducing friction in conversations.

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…
#api#ssr#network issue#logging issue#authentication issue

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 - ✅(Solved) Fix [Feature]: Discord: Thread-specific requireMention configuration [1 pull requests, 2 comments, 3 participants]