docs: propose a community visual identity and typography direction

[sergiopesch]

What Problem This Solves

Makes an independent OpenClaw visual identity and typography proposal available for maintainer and community critique, with working specimens and editable assets. This is an invitation to evaluate a design direction; it does not claim the current upstream design is defective or request a wholesale rebrand.

Explore the public design proposal · Downloads and maintainer resources · Run your own local copy

Why This Change Was Made

Adds a draft RFC covering the red claw identity, Claw Sans, shell texture, and character, with device, voice, and merch studies as supporting context. It proposes a maintainer-selected, focused evaluation before any implementation. Existing native design rules and the distinction between the React/Vinext study and upstream Lit/SwiftUI applications are explicit.

User Impact

Reviewers can explore the public site immediately, inspect downloadable source assets and exact type measurements, or build the same design locally. The website is a prototype with local interaction states, not a Gateway client. No upstream runtime code is changed.

Made with care and love by Sergio Peschiera — @sergiopesch.

Evidence

Checked on September 8, 2026:

• All 12 public pages, 101 linked assets, and 70 downloadable resource checksums pass.
• All 413 published static files match the author's canonical local build byte-for-byte.
• Freshly downloaded source ZIP: checksum verified; clean dependency installation, companion-resource restoration, resource checks, TypeScript, lint, and production build passed. Its local server passed all 12 page and 101 linked-asset checks.
• Desktop Chromium: typography reading controls, logo treatments, navigation, character lightbox/Escape, Phone preview, voice-state/pause/wave controls, and source ZIP download passed.
• Mobile Chromium at 390 × 844: menu navigation and appearance switching passed; checked Typography and Downloads pages have no horizontal overflow.
• No application console errors in those flows. Unused-preload and automated WebGL GPU-stall warnings are documented. This is not comprehensive accessibility, native-device, GPU performance, language, or Gateway qualification.

Detailed reproduction steps, archive hash, licensing/provenance links, screenshots, and test limits are in rfcs/0032/local-preview.md and rfcs/0032/ASSET-NOTICES.md. Screenshots show the proposal, not upstream before/after changes.

The RFC remains status: draft; the implementation issue is intentionally blank. This submission is GitHub-only: the separate maintainer-discussion thread required by the RFC README remains outstanding, so this is not ready for acceptance/merge. Feedback here on scope and an appropriate first evaluation surface is welcome. Allow edits from maintainers is enabled.

[clawsweeper]

🦞👀
ClawSweeper picked this up.

Pull request received. I will update this pull request when review starts.

ClawSweeper review complete

ClawSweeper finished reviewing this revision. The review result is being finalized.

View the workflow run.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: blocked before merge. Reviewed September 10, 2026, 6:46 PM ET / 22:46 UTC (Revision 2).

ClawSweeper review

What this changes

Adds a draft visual-identity and typography RFC with four screenshots, asset notices, and local preview instructions.

Merge readiness

⛔ Blocked before merge - 3 items remain

Keep open: this is a coherent, visually supported proposal absent from current main. The prior review’s acceptance blocker remains unresolved, and the closed, unmerged mobile-design proposal does not supersede it.

Priority: P3
Reviewed head: 9e93be8a43d53ca73abd8601a75ff018051200f1
Owner decision: Required. See Decision needed.

Review scores

Measure	Result	What it means
Overall readiness	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	A clear, bounded RFC with useful visual proof and no actionable patch defect; product acceptance remains a separate decision.
Proof confidence	🦞 diamond lobster (5/6) ✨ media proof bonus	Sufficient (screenshot): The inspected desktop and mobile screenshots directly show the visual specimens introduced by this RFC, supported by the documented Chromium preview observations; they are sufficient for a design proposal, without proving runtime or native adoption claims.
Patch quality	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	No actionable review findings were identified.

Verification

Check	Result	Evidence
Real behavior	Verified	Sufficient (screenshot): The inspected desktop and mobile screenshots directly show the visual specimens introduced by this RFC, supported by the documented Chromium preview observations; they are sufficient for a design proposal, without proving runtime or native adoption claims.
Evidence reviewed	8 items	Complete introduced change: The pinned base-to-head diff adds three Markdown files and four PNGs, with 174 text lines added and no deletions. All Markdown changes and all four images were inspected; no runtime, dependency, workflow, or installed configuration changes are introduced. Acceptance contract: The fully read README requires a maintainer-discussion thread, acceptance, an implementation issue, and accepted metadata before merging an RFC. The proposal explicitly acknowledges the missing thread at line 98. RFC process history: Git history identifies the RFC-process change; GitHub commit metadata and its README patch associate it with kevinslin. Local blame and historical patch reads encountered unavailable blobs, so routing uses the available history and GitHub patch rather than claiming successful local blame verification.
Findings	None	None.
Security	None	None.

How this fits together

The RFC repository collects OpenClaw proposals for community discussion and maintainer acceptance. This proposal supplies visual specimens for a scope decision that could later lead to a separate implementation issue.

flowchart TD
  A[Design specimens and assets] --> B[Draft visual identity RFC]
  B --> C[Maintainer discussion]
  C --> D{Accept a focused scope?}
  D -->|Yes| E[Implementation issue]
  D -->|Not yet| F[Revise or retain community study]

Loading

Decision needed

Question	Recommendation
Should OpenClaw sponsor a focused Claw Sans evaluation, and which documentation or UI surface should it use?	Evaluate typography on one surface: Select an owner and one representative surface for comparison before accepting any implementation scope.

Why: The RFC deliberately leaves brand adoption and evaluation ownership unresolved; screenshots demonstrate the study but cannot establish project priorities.

Before merge

• Resolve merge risk (P1) - The proposal has not established improved readability, accessibility, or language coverage on an upstream surface; those remain evaluation questions before any adoption.
• Complete next step (P2) - Create and link the required maintainer-discussion thread and obtain a scope decision; after acceptance, link an implementation issue and set the RFC status to accepted before merge.
• Resolve maintainer decision - Resolve the maintainer decision shown above before merge.

Agent review details

Security

None.

Review metrics

Metric	Value	Why it matters
Proposal footprint	174 documentation lines and 4 screenshots added; 0 runtime files changed	The review concerns design direction and RFC acceptance rather than an application upgrade.

Merge-risk options

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Evaluate one maintainer-selected typography surface against existing visuals, with explicit accessibility and language criteria, and record only the accepted scope.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Technical review

Best possible solution:

Evaluate one maintainer-selected typography surface against existing visuals, with explicit accessibility and language criteria, and record only the accepted scope.

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

Not applicable: this RFC explicitly proposes a design evaluation and does not report defective existing behavior.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: a compact RFC with inspectable specimens and a selective evaluation is appropriate here; adopting the whole collection is not justified by the supplied evidence.

AGENTS.md: not found in the target repository.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning medium; reviewed against 967d9aac7472.

Labels

Label justifications:

• P3: This is an exploratory visual-design proposal with no broken production workflow or runtime change.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🦞 diamond lobster and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Sufficient (screenshot): The inspected desktop and mobile screenshots directly show the visual specimens introduced by this RFC, supported by the documented Chromium preview observations; they are sufficient for a design proposal, without proving runtime or native adoption claims.
• proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The inspected desktop and mobile screenshots directly show the visual specimens introduced by this RFC, supported by the documented Chromium preview observations; they are sufficient for a design proposal, without proving runtime or native adoption claims.
• proof: 📸 screenshot: Contributor real behavior proof includes screenshot evidence. The inspected desktop and mobile screenshots directly show the visual specimens introduced by this RFC, supported by the documented Chromium preview observations; they are sufficient for a design proposal, without proving runtime or native adoption claims.

Evidence

What I checked:

• Complete introduced change: The pinned base-to-head diff adds three Markdown files and four PNGs, with 174 text lines added and no deletions. All Markdown changes and all four images were inspected; no runtime, dependency, workflow, or installed configuration changes are introduced. (rfcs/0032-community-visual-identity.md:15, 9e93be8a43d5)
• Acceptance contract: The fully read README requires a maintainer-discussion thread, acceptance, an implementation issue, and accepted metadata before merging an RFC. The proposal explicitly acknowledges the missing thread at line 98. (README.md:80, 967d9aac7472)
• RFC process history: Git history identifies the RFC-process change; GitHub commit metadata and its README patch associate it with kevinslin. Local blame and historical patch reads encountered unavailable blobs, so routing uses the available history and GitHub patch rather than claiming successful local blame verification. (README.md:90, e366ea9825a4)
• Visual proof inspected: Prepared logo, typography, and character screenshots were opened directly and their SHA-256 hashes match the checked-out PNGs. The checked-out mobile screenshot was also inspected. They visibly demonstrate the proposed identity and desktop/mobile typography, without establishing native accessibility, network behavior, or upstream usability improvements. (rfcs/0032/typography.png, 9e93be8a43d5)
• Current-main and release check: The current-main tree and Markdown search contain no equivalent visual-identity or Claw Sans proposal. The GitHub releases endpoint returned an empty list; no released implementation is established. (967d9aac7472)
• Related proposal is not a replacement: The supplied discussion describes RFC: OpenClaw Mobile App Design Directions #28 as a collection of mobile-app design directions. GitHub confirms it is closed and unmerged; it supplies adjacent context, not a landing path for this identity and typography proposal.

Likely related people:

• kevinslin: Suggested for follow-up; no historical authorship or introduction is verified. (role: unverified routing candidate; confidence: low)
• RomneyDa: Suggested for follow-up; no historical authorship or introduction is verified. (role: unverified routing candidate; confidence: low)

Rating scale

Score	Internal tier	Crab rank	Meaning
6/6	S	🦀 challenger crab	Exceptional readiness
5/6	A	🦞 diamond lobster	Very strong readiness
4/6	B	🐚 platinum hermit	Good normal PR; ordinary maintainer review
3/6	C	🦐 gold shrimp	Useful, but confidence is limited
2/6	D	🦪 silver shellfish	Proof or implementation needs work
1/6	F	🧂 unranked krab	Not merge-ready
N/A	NA	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Rating does not apply

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality.
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.

Workflow

• 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.

History

Review history (1 earlier review cycle)

• reviewed 2026-09-08T16:57:40.557Z sha 9e93be8 :: blocked before merge. :: none