fix(review-bot): the agent states its verdict, the bot no longer guesses it from headings

A Blocking section that said 'none' but held a sentence turned the review into
REQUEST_CHANGES. The agent now ends its report with 'Verdict: request-changes|comment|approve';
no verdict means a plain comment, and an approval is downgraded when the report still holds
red, yellow or unverified sections.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

review-bot/mistral.go

@@ -149,7 +149,6 @@ type output struct {
 	Type    string          `json:"type"`
 	Name    string          `json:"name"`
 	Content json.RawMessage `json:"content"`
-	Info    json.RawMessage `json:"info"`
 }
 
 type conversation struct {

review-bot/prompt.md

@@ -89,6 +89,13 @@ the first heading. Structure it exactly as below. Omit a section entirely when i
 ## Recommendation
 
 <One line: "Request changes — <n> blocking issue(s)" or "Looks reasonable — no blocking issues; comments above are optional.">
+
+Verdict: <request-changes | comment | approve>
 ```
 
+The last line of your answer is the verdict, exactly as written above, and nothing follows it. It is what the
+bot acts on, so it must agree with your report: `request-changes` when the Blocking section lists at least one
+verified defect, `approve` only when you have no blocking issue, suggestion or unverified point, and `comment`
+otherwise.
+
 Be specific and concise. Quote only the minimal lines that carry a point.

review-bot/report.go

@@ -58,17 +58,33 @@ func hasHeading(report, prefix string) bool {
 	return false
 }
 
-// reviewEvent derives the Gitea review event from the sections the report contains: a red
-// (Blocking) section requests changes; a non-empty change with no red, yellow or unverified
-// section and a recommendation is approved; everything else is a comment.
-func reviewEvent(report string, nonEmptyChange bool) string {
-	switch {
-	case hasHeading(report, "## 🔴"):
-		return "REQUEST_CHANGES"
-	case nonEmptyChange && !hasHeading(report, "## 🟡") && !hasHeading(report, "## ⚪") &&
-		hasHeading(report, "## Recommendation"):
-		return "APPROVE"
-	default:
-		return "COMMENT"
+var verdictLine = regexp.MustCompile(`(?i)^verdict:\s*(request[-_ ]changes|comment|approve)\s*$`)
+
+// splitVerdict takes the agent's explicit verdict, its last non-empty line "Verdict: <value>",
+// off the answer. The verdict is "" when the line is missing, which later reads as a plain comment.
+func splitVerdict(answer string) (rest, verdict string) {
+	lines := strings.Split(strings.TrimRight(strings.ReplaceAll(answer, "\r\n", "\n"), " \t\n"), "\n")
+	if len(lines) == 0 {
+		return answer, ""
 	}
+	m := verdictLine.FindStringSubmatch(strings.TrimSpace(lines[len(lines)-1]))
+	if m == nil {
+		return answer, ""
+	}
+	return strings.Join(lines[:len(lines)-1], "\n"), strings.ToLower(strings.NewReplacer("_", "-", " ", "-").Replace(m[1]))
+}
+
+// reviewEvent maps the agent's verdict to the Gitea review event. Changes are requested and
+// comments posted as the agent said; an approval is only honoured for a non-empty change whose
+// report holds no yellow or unverified section, and anything else is a comment.
+func reviewEvent(verdict, report string, nonEmptyChange bool) string {
+	switch verdict {
+	case "request-changes":
+		return "REQUEST_CHANGES"
+	case "approve":
+		if nonEmptyChange && !hasHeading(report, "## 🔴") && !hasHeading(report, "## 🟡") && !hasHeading(report, "## ⚪") {
+			return "APPROVE"
+		}
+	}
+	return "COMMENT"
 }

review-bot/report_test.go

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 package main
 
-import "testing"
+import (
+	"strings"
+	"testing"
+)
 
 func TestCleanReport(t *testing.T) {
 	cases := []struct{ name, in, want string }{
@@ -28,29 +31,6 @@ func TestCleanReport(t *testing.T) {
 	}
 }
 
-func TestReviewEvent(t *testing.T) {
-	cases := []struct {
-		name, report string
-		nonEmpty     bool
-		want         string
-	}{
-		{"red requests changes", "## Summary\n\nx\n\n## 🔴 Blocking\n\n- y\n\n## Recommendation\n\nz", true, "REQUEST_CHANGES"},
-		{"nothing to raise approves", "## Summary\n\nx\n\n## Recommendation\n\nz", true, "APPROVE"},
-		{"nits alone still approve", "## Summary\n\nx\n\n## 🟢 Nits\n\n- a\n\n## Recommendation\n\nz", true, "APPROVE"},
-		{"yellow comments", "## Summary\n\nx\n\n## 🟡 Suggestions\n\n- a\n\n## Recommendation\n\nz", true, "COMMENT"},
-		{"unverified comments", "## Summary\n\nx\n\n## ⚪ Unverified\n\n- a\n\n## Recommendation\n\nz", true, "COMMENT"},
-		{"no recommendation never approves", "## Summary\n\nx", true, "COMMENT"},
-		{"an empty change never approves", "## Summary\n\nx\n\n## Recommendation\n\nz", false, "COMMENT"},
-	}
-	for _, c := range cases {
-		t.Run(c.name, func(t *testing.T) {
-			if got := reviewEvent(c.report, c.nonEmpty); got != c.want {
-				t.Errorf("got %s, want %s", got, c.want)
-			}
-		})
-	}
-}
-
 func TestEligible(t *testing.T) {
 	pr := func(state, title string, draft bool, sha string) PR {
 		p := PR{State: state, Title: title, Draft: draft}
@@ -132,3 +112,51 @@ func TestParseAnswer(t *testing.T) {
 		t.Errorf("an answer without outputs is empty, got %+v, %v", a, err)
 	}
 }
+
+func TestSplitVerdict(t *testing.T) {
+	cases := []struct {
+		name, in, wantRest, wantVerdict string
+	}{
+		{"request changes", "## A\n\nx\n\nVerdict: request-changes\n", "## A\n\nx\n", "request-changes"},
+		{"spelled with a space, any case", "## A\n\nVERDICT: Request Changes", "## A\n", "request-changes"},
+		{"approve", "## A\n\nx\nVerdict: approve", "## A\n\nx", "approve"},
+		{"missing", "## A\n\nx", "## A\n\nx", ""},
+		{"not the last line", "Verdict: approve\n\n## A\n\nx", "Verdict: approve\n\n## A\n\nx", ""},
+		{"unknown value", "## A\n\nVerdict: maybe", "## A\n\nVerdict: maybe", ""},
+	}
+	for _, c := range cases {
+		t.Run(c.name, func(t *testing.T) {
+			rest, verdict := splitVerdict(c.in)
+			if strings.TrimSpace(rest) != strings.TrimSpace(c.wantRest) || verdict != c.wantVerdict {
+				t.Errorf("got %q, %q; want %q, %q", rest, verdict, c.wantRest, c.wantVerdict)
+			}
+		})
+	}
+}
+
+func TestReviewEvent(t *testing.T) {
+	const clean = "## Summary\n\nx\n\n## Recommendation\n\nz"
+	const yellow = "## Summary\n\nx\n\n## 🟡 Suggestions\n\n- a\n\n## Recommendation\n\nz"
+	const red = "## Summary\n\nx\n\n## 🔴 Blocking\n\nNone at this head; an earlier finding is fixed.\n\n## Recommendation\n\nz"
+	cases := []struct {
+		name, verdict, report string
+		nonEmpty              bool
+		want                  string
+	}{
+		{"the agent requests changes", "request-changes", clean, true, "REQUEST_CHANGES"},
+		{"a red heading alone does not request changes", "comment", red, true, "COMMENT"},
+		{"approve", "approve", clean, true, "APPROVE"},
+		{"approve with a yellow section is only a comment", "approve", yellow, true, "COMMENT"},
+		{"approve with a red section is only a comment", "approve", red, true, "COMMENT"},
+		{"an empty change never approves", "approve", clean, false, "COMMENT"},
+		{"comment", "comment", yellow, true, "COMMENT"},
+		{"no verdict is a comment", "", clean, true, "COMMENT"},
+	}
+	for _, c := range cases {
+		t.Run(c.name, func(t *testing.T) {
+			if got := reviewEvent(c.verdict, c.report, c.nonEmpty); got != c.want {
+				t.Errorf("got %s, want %s", got, c.want)
+			}
+		})
+	}
+}

review-bot/review.go

@@ -74,7 +74,8 @@ func (r *Reviewer) Review(ctx context.Context, slug string, n int) error {
 		r.metrics.Inc("reviews_total", "result", "violation")
 		return fmt.Errorf("the agent called tools that are not read-only (%s); nothing is posted", strings.Join(ans.Violations, ", "))
 	}
-	report := cleanReport(ans.Text)
+	text, verdict := splitVerdict(ans.Text)
+	report := cleanReport(text)
 	if report == "" {
 		r.metrics.Inc("reviews_total", "result", "failed")
 		return errors.New("the agent's answer holds no report")
@@ -95,7 +96,7 @@ func (r *Reviewer) Review(ctx context.Context, slug string, n int) error {
 		}
 	}
 
-	event := reviewEvent(report, pr.Additions+pr.Deletions+pr.ChangedFiles > 0)
+	event := reviewEvent(verdict, report, pr.Additions+pr.Deletions+pr.ChangedFiles > 0)
 	body := fmt.Sprintf("🤖 **Automated review** — model `%s`, commit `%s`.\n\n"+
 		"> Automated review by the `review-bot`: it approves only when it found nothing red or yellow, "+
 		"and a human still merges. Push new commits to get a fresh review.\n\n---\n\n%s\n\n<!-- %s -->\n",

review-bot/review_test.go

@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ type fixture struct {
 
 const goodAnswer = `{"outputs":[
   {"type":"tool.execution","name":"conn_get_file_contents"},
-  {"type":"message.output","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"x"},{"type":"text","text":"I looked.\n\n## Summary\n\nAdds a field.\n\n## 🔴 Blocking\n\n- a.yaml:3 is wrong.\n\n## 🟡 Suggestions\n\nNone.\n\n## Recommendation\n\nRequest changes — 1 blocking issue(s)"}]}]}`
+  {"type":"message.output","content":[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"x"},{"type":"text","text":"I looked.\n\n## Summary\n\nAdds a field.\n\n## 🔴 Blocking\n\n- a.yaml:3 is wrong.\n\n## 🟡 Suggestions\n\nNone.\n\n## Recommendation\n\nRequest changes — 1 blocking issue(s)\n\nVerdict: request-changes"}]}]}`
 
 func newFixture(t *testing.T) *fixture {
 	f := &fixture{t: t, prState: "open", head: "abc123", reviews: "[]", answer: goodAnswer, agents: "[]"}