The H10 classification lived inline in `pretooluse-merge-consent.sh` with no tests. Three
protections the `release.review-verdict-gate` record described were never actually
implemented, and each graded an unreviewed head as approved. All three reproduced first:
1 MERGEABLE-LATER -> positive the token was prefix-matched, so any word STARTING
with mergeable/approved/lgtm passed
2 fenced code block -> positive the line-start anchor is satisfied inside ```, so
documentation showing the convention was a verdict
3 URL-borne sha -> positive the sha came from the first `@<hex>` ANYWHERE on the
line, so a markdown link could supply it
Fixes: whole-word token matching, with a token in neither vocabulary classified `unknown`
(never positive, and not guessed into a block either — it goes to a human); fenced blocks
stripped with fence state reset per comment body; the sha read from the verdict's OWN
`@ <sha>` field, which also makes multi-`@` lines unambiguous.
The grammar moves to `scripts/check-review-verdict.sh` so it can be tested at all — 38 tests,
and each fix mutation-verified: restoring the old regex/extraction makes exactly the
corresponding test fail, control green.
#629's fourth reported item is NOT a defect and is not claimed as a fix. A later `@ <head>`
on a BLOCKED line was reported as "masking a negative"; under the documented grammar that
line is a verdict for the sha in its own field, so `stale` is correct — and was correct
before this change too. Kept as a characterization test.
`test_post_review_verdict.py`'s cross-check re-implemented the hook's regexes in Python and
asserted the shell still contained them. That mirror is removed: it is the same duplication
that let these three survive, and a Python copy would keep passing while the shell drifted.
It now runs the real classifier.
The decision record is corrected — it asserted the URL protection this commit actually adds.
Note: the active corpus is 5637 lines against a 5600 budget, so the validator emits its
consolidation warning (non-blocking). That is #620's subject, not regressed here.
fixes#629
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Decisions-Edit: yes
timothyandClaude Opus 5
38a96f47cc