`_SECRET_REF` ran over the whole string while the comment above it claimed every
pattern was confined to `${{ }}` spans. Executed against the shipped module,
`secret_refs("# We deliberately pass no secrets. Then the pull is anonymous.")`
returned `['Then']`, and fed through the real collector that is one fault reading
"job `j` names stored secret(s) on the pull_request route: Then" — a fabricated
name, on a PR-route job, for its own comment. The same comment separately reddened
the text-versus-walk cross-check, because the line-level strip removes a `#` line
from the text half only.
The existing negative control passed for a reason that does not generalise: no `.`
follows the word in `"no secrets are used here"`. A sentence ENDING in "secrets."
is the likeliest thing to be written into a PR-route `run:` block on this branch's
own subject, so the trap was self-inflicted.
`secret_refs` now resolves names per `${{ }}` span, so every spelling is scoped the
way the residue counter already was. The added rows drive the real predecessor —
`_SECRET_REF` applied to the whole string — and assert it read a name where the
scoped reader reads none, so reverting the scoping reddens them.
The `INJECTED_SECRETS` comment stops calling the injected `GITEA_TOKEN` "bounded by
the workflow's own `permissions:`": on this route the head supplies that file and
can delete the block. Allow-listing it is a claim about the store it is not in, not
about a bound.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015QqCpYFsKgnAnx6jVwrKiV
timothyandClaude Fable 5.1
d62335bc8d