I am not pretending to be an expert on punctuation. So no fancy words.
Here's the thing- commas have specific uses. For example, to set off an appositive phrase. Or with introductory prepositional phrases (either discretionary or mandatory depending on length). Or certain uses for quotations. Commas have specific uses.
But my understanding is this still effectively qualifies as a list, and with lists you don't have to use the oxford comma (maybe I am missing some grammatical nuance where a list of actions like this doesn't qualify and there is some requirement that it needs a comma, but this definitely strikes me as a kind of sentence I have seen plenty of time, and would be fully understandable to me with just the one comma.
EDITED so it's a standard list without the Oxford comma.
According to grammarly for example both:
"Julie loves ice cream, books, and kittens."
Oxford comma. All of these are nouns- the objects of Julie's love.
and
"Julie loves ice cream, books and kittens."
are correct.
This is the same list as above, without the Oxford comma. Here, there is no confusion because (unlike some of the examples) there isn't an issue with the modifier, or with it being a possible appositive phrase.
and it lists:
"I cleaned the house and garage, raked the lawn, and took out the garbage."
This is a list too, with an Oxford comma. Let me show you:
I (subject) -
(1) cleaned the house and garage.
(2) raked the lawn.
(3) took out the garbage.
or
"I cleaned the house and garage, raked the lawn and took out the garbage."
As both being correct.
Same, but without the Oxford comma. Very little chance of misunderstanding here.
Now if what I am suggesting doesn't fall under the rule, fair enough I can copt to that being technically wrong (though I would say it is a rather stupid rule in my opinion as I can easily decipher the meaning with the one comma there to separate eats so it isn't confused with the other two to create ambiguous meaning)
This isn't technically wrong. If this is a list, then:
The panda eats, shoots and leaves.
This would be a verb list without an Oxford comma...
The panda (subject)-
(1) eats.
(2) shoots.
(3) leaves.
Unfortunately, this becomes confusing because .... "shoots" and "leaves" are not just verbs, they are nouns. When there is an Oxford comma, you know that this is a verb list. When there isn't, and you see a panda at the beginning, this doesn't
look like a list; instead, it looks like a sentence fragment that was incorrectly prepared and either has a misplaced and accidental comma, or is missing some words for an appositive phrase (such as "food" after eats). The idea that this is a correct list in this example is vanishingly small.
This is actually a great example of why you use the Oxford (aka serial) comma. When you use it, you know that you have a list. When you don't, like the circumstances here, it looks way off. I honestly couldn't parse it correctly because it didn't make sense as a list with an omitted serial comma.