fix(outside-review): a check-results sign-off keeps the no-findings conclusion (#3469) (#4130)

* fix(outside-review): a check-results sign-off keeps the no-findings conclusion (#3469)

A clean Codex review that ends with "Tests, lint, and build all pass." read
VERDICT: unverified, so /ship and /review reported missing outside coverage.
Closing check-results sentences are now skipped when the conclusion is read,
fail-closed for code, failures, truncation and wrapped lines. (GST-1803)

Co-authored-by: vilano93 <244097767+vilano93@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

* fix: pre-landing review fixes

A clause after the whole-change scope ("No issues in the diff, while the change disables auth.") no longer reads as a no-findings conclusion: the scope phrase ends at a clause break and while/whereas count as contrast words.

Review-Finding: p1/specialist-batched#1 reader=red-team
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

* fix: pre-landing review fixes

Any clause joined after the whole-change scope (a comma, dash, parenthesis, or and/so/since/while...) keeps the no-findings statement from concluding the review; a list of change kinds stays one scope. The scope test is linear again.

Review-Finding: p2/fix-check/fix-check#1 reader=fix-check
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

* fix: pre-landing review fixes

A double-hyphen or figure dash, brackets, a spaced slash, plus and despite after the whole-change scope also start a clause the scope does not cover. Granted fix-check under review_loop_exception a-2726c5b57840.

Review-Finding: fc2/fix-check#1 reader=fix-check
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

* docs(troubleshooting): name the scope-clause rules for the outside-review no-findings conclusion

Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: vilano93 <244097767+vilano93@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

docs/troubleshooting.md

@@ -199,12 +199,20 @@ the readiness dashboard and the PR body, and never count it as a pass.
 - **No findings.** A review with no tag and no label is `clean` only when its
   conclusion says so: the last sentence (or its last ", and" clause), or the
   `because` clause of its `Recommendation:` line, opens with `NO_FINDINGS`,
-  "No issues found", "I found no actionable regressions" or "I did not find
-  any bugs", with no "but", "however", "except", "other than" or "elsewhere".
+  "No issues found", "I found no actionable regressions", "I did not find
+  any bugs" or "The changes introduce no regressions", with no "but",
+  "however", "while", "whereas", "except", "other than" or "elsewhere". Closing sentences that
+  only report passing checks ("Tests, lint, and build all pass.") sign the
+  review off and are skipped, so the sentence before them is the conclusion;
+  a check sentence that quotes code, fails, is cut off, continues a wrapped
+  line, follows a colon or is the reply's only sentence is never skipped.
   When other prose comes first, anything after that statement except a
   predicate ("were found", "is evident") or a colon explanation must scope it
   to the change as a whole ("in this change", "in the staged changes"); "No
-  issues in the parser." does not conclude the review. A "no issues" phrase
+  issues in the parser." does not conclude the review, and neither does a
+  clause joined after that scope ("No issues in the diff, so it is safe.").
+  A statement with the change as its subject ("The changes introduce no
+  regressions") is held to this scope rule even as the reply's only sentence. A "no issues" phrase
   anywhere else in the reply does not count. Otherwise the review is
   `unverified` (see below), never `clean`. A `/codex` consult
   answer with no severity labels at all is not a review summary and stays