feat(web): add post-publish share dialog

[vyctorbrzezowski]

Summary

• add a post-publish success dialog for newly published skills
• add Discord/Twitter sharing, inline copy feedback, and canonical public share URLs
• keep the skill page URL clean after publishing, while still handling older ?published=true links

Screenshots

Desktop:

Mobile:

Stress cases:

Validation

• VITE_CONVEX_URL=https://example.invalid bunx vitest run src/components/SkillPublishSuccessDialog.test.tsx src/lib/postPublishFlash.test.ts src/__tests__/skill-detail-page.test.tsx
• bun run ci:static
• bun run ci:unit
• bun run ci:types-build
• AUTOREVIEW_AUTO_TESTS=0 /Users/vyctor/Code/clawhub/.agents/skills/autoreview/scripts/autoreview --mode branch --base upstream/main --reviewer codex --fallback-reviewer none

[vercel]

@vyctorbrzezowski is attempting to deploy a commit to the Amantus Machina Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed May 29, 2026, 5:28 PM ET / 21:28 UTC.

Summary
The PR adds a post-publish success dialog for skill pages, sessionStorage-based publish flash handling, clean post-publish navigation, share/copy actions, styling, and focused tests.

Reproducibility: not applicable. as a feature PR; there is no failing current-main bug to reproduce. The review evidence is the branch diff plus inspected screenshots and tests for the new flow.

Review metrics: none identified.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🦞 diamond lobster
Proof: 🦞 diamond lobster ✨ media proof bonus
Patch quality: 🦞 diamond lobster
Result: ready for maintainer review.

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

Risk before merge

• [P1] The branch is behind current main by six commits; GitHub reports it mergeable, but maintainers should review the refreshed merge result and CI before landing.

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Land the dialog after ordinary maintainer review and current-base CI if the share destinations and visual treatment match the intended product direction.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

• No automated repair is needed; this PR has no concrete code finding and should proceed through normal maintainer review, current-base CI, and mergeability checks.

Security
Cleared: The diff adds client-side UI, sessionStorage flash state, tests, and a test import reorder; no concrete security or supply-chain regression was found.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land the dialog after ordinary maintainer review and current-base CI if the share destinations and visual treatment match the intended product direction.

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

Not applicable as a feature PR; there is no failing current-main bug to reproduce. The review evidence is the branch diff plus inspected screenshots and tests for the new flow.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. The sessionStorage flash plus clean detail-route dialog is a narrow maintainable path that avoids leaving publish-state query parameters in canonical skill URLs.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against ff75a7e9ae23.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Overall readiness is 🦞 diamond lobster; proof is 🦞 diamond lobster and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• remove rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Current PR rating is rating: 🦞 diamond lobster, so this older rating label is no longer current.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk web UX feature for the post-publish flow rather than a production regression or core availability issue.
• rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Overall readiness is 🦞 diamond lobster; proof is 🦞 diamond lobster and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Sufficient (screenshot): The PR body includes desktop, mobile, and stress screenshots that directly show the after-change publish success dialog and share UI.
• proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The PR body includes desktop, mobile, and stress screenshots that directly show the after-change publish success dialog and share UI.
• proof: 📸 screenshot: Contributor real behavior proof includes screenshot evidence. The PR body includes desktop, mobile, and stress screenshots that directly show the after-change publish success dialog and share UI.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Current main check: Current main has no post-publish dialog, flash helper, share actions, or published=true handling in the skill detail route, so the central feature is not already implemented. (ff75a7e9ae23)
• Dialog implementation: The branch adds a dedicated publish success dialog that builds a public skill URL, exposes Discord and Twitter share actions, and provides inline copy handling. (src/components/SkillPublishSuccessDialog.tsx:20, f45eca83bee1)
• Route integration: The skill detail route validates legacy published search values, consumes the post-publish flash, opens the dialog, and removes the query from the URL. (src/routes/$owner/$slug.tsx:25, f45eca83bee1)
• Publish flow integration: After a successful skill publish, the branch sets a scoped post-publish flash, suppresses the old toast only when the dialog can be shown, and navigates to the clean skill URL. (src/routes/skills/publish.tsx:735, f45eca83bee1)
• Focused coverage: Added tests cover share URLs, focus behavior, local-origin canonical URL fallback, clipboard copy, Discord copy text, dismissal, and sessionStorage consumption/fallback behavior. (src/components/SkillPublishSuccessDialog.test.tsx:44, f45eca83bee1)
• Contributor proof inspected: Downloaded and inspected the PR's desktop, mobile, and long-name stress screenshots; they show the after-change dialog, canonical clawhub.ai URL, copy action, and share destinations in the real UI.

Likely related people:

• Vyctor H. Brzezowski: Recent merged work touched the publish form, skill detail page, publish-route tests, and related upload UI that this branch extends. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 6adf379f3220, 321df223b2ef; files: src/routes/skills/publish.tsx, src/components/SkillDetailPage.tsx, src/__tests__/skills-publish-route.test.tsx)
• Patrick Erichsen: Blame and recent commits show ownership of the current publish success baseline, skill detail data flow, and local-auth publish lifecycle stabilization. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 875f026a2300, 1f56a7143043, ff48b2cc7020; files: src/routes/skills/publish.tsx, src/components/SkillDetailPage.tsx, src/routes/$owner/$slug.tsx)

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.