[eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule

[github-actions]

Summary

Adds a new ESLint rule no-caught-error-interpolation to the gh-aw-custom plugin. The rule flags bare caught-error variable interpolation in template literals, which silently produces [object Object] for non-Error throws or the redundant Error: message prefix for Error instances.

Changes

New rule — eslint-factory/src/rules/no-caught-error-interpolation.ts

• Detects bare Identifier expressions (no member access, no call) inside untagged template literals where the identifier resolves — through the full scope chain, including closures — to a caught-error binding:
  • try/catch clause with a simple Identifier param (destructured params are excluded).
  • Inline rejection handler param in .catch(fn) or .then(onFulfilled, fn).
• Emits bareErrorInterpolation with a single autofixable suggestion:
  • useGetErrorMessage — wraps with getErrorMessage(err) when getErrorMessage is resolvable in scope.
  • useStringFallback — wraps with String(err) otherwise.
• Skips tagged template expressions, err.message/err.stack member access, and safe call forms (String(err), getErrorMessage(err), err.toString()).
• isDefinitionAvailableAtNode guards against synthetic/virtual nodes that have no range, avoiding runtime throws.

Registration

• eslint-factory/src/index.ts: imports and registers noCaughtErrorInterpolationRule in the plugin rules map.
• eslint-factory/eslint.config.cjs: enables the rule at warn severity.

Tests — eslint-factory/src/rules/no-caught-error-interpolation.test.ts

Full Vitest + RuleTester suite covering CJS and ESM source types:

Category	Cases
Valid (not flagged)	Non-caught variables, getErrorMessage(err), String(err), err.message/err.stack, err.toString(), tagged templates, zero-param .catch(), destructured catch params
Invalid (flagged)	Bare catch variable in try/catch, getErrorMessage suggestion when in scope, .catch() / .then() rejection handlers, multiple interpolations in same template, closures (arrow, function expression, FunctionDeclaration) inside catch body, ESM import context

Commits

Hash	Message
3bb748268	feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule
0b7f3f1f9	fix(eslint): address review feedback on no-caught-error-interpolation rule
f149cafd8	fix: clarify range guard comment in isDefinitionAvailableAtNode
02d39b5de	test(eslint): add FunctionDeclaration inside catch coverage

Generated by PR Description Updater for #48175 · sonnet46 · 66.7 AIC · ⌖ 5.91 AIC · ⊞ 4.8K · ◷

[github-actions]

✅ Design Decision Gate 🏗️ completed the design decision gate check.

No ADR enforcement needed: PR #48175 does not have the 'implementation' label and has 0 new lines of code in business logic directories (threshold: 100).

[github-actions]

✅ PR Code Quality Reviewer completed the code quality review.

[github-actions]

✅ Test Quality Sentinel completed test quality analysis.

[github-actions]

🧠 Matt Pocock Skills Reviewer has completed the skills-based review. ✅

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Adds an ESLint rule to detect direct interpolation of caught errors in template literals.

Changes:

• Implements and registers no-caught-error-interpolation.
• Adds rule tests and enables it as a warning.
• Provides formatting replacement suggestions.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
eslint-factory/src/rules/no-caught-error-interpolation.ts	Implements detection and suggestions.
eslint-factory/src/rules/no-caught-error-interpolation.test.ts	Tests supported patterns.
eslint-factory/src/index.ts	Registers the rule.
eslint-factory/eslint.config.cjs	Enables the rule.

Review details

Tip

Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

eslint-factory/src/rules/no-caught-error-interpolation.ts:164

• String(errorVar) does not remediate the reported behavior: template-literal interpolation already performs string coercion, so both forms produce "Error: message" for Error and "[object Object]" for a plain object. Applying this suggestion therefore silences the rule without improving the output. Offer getErrorMessage only (or another formatter that actually handles unknown thrown values), and update the fallback message/tests accordingly.

 : ({
messageId: "useStringFallback" as const,
data: { errorVar },
fix(fixer) {
return fixer.replaceText(expr, `String(${errorVar})`);
},
} as const),

eslint-factory/src/rules/no-caught-error-interpolation.ts:140

• Matching only the identifier name reports shadowing locals as caught errors. For example, catch (err) { { const err = "formatted"; log(${err}); } } is flagged even though the interpolated identifier resolves to the inner string. Verify that the expression's resolved variable is the tracked catch/rejection parameter rather than comparing names.

 for (const expr of node.expressions) {
if (!isBareIdentifierExpression(expr)) continue;
if (!caughtNames.has(expr.name)) continue;

• Files reviewed: 4/4 changed files
• Comments generated: 3
• Review effort level: Medium

[github-actions]

🧪 Test Quality Sentinel Report

⚠️Test Quality Score: 64/100 — Acceptable

Analyzed 19 test case(s): 10 design, 1 implementation, 0 violation(s).

📊 Metrics (19 test cases)

Metric	Value
Analyzed	19 (Go: 0, JS/TS: 19)
✅ Design	10 (52.6%)
⚠️ Implementation	1 (5.3%)
Edge/error coverage	8 (42.1%)
Duplicate clusters	0
Test:Prod ratio	1.41:1 (acceptable)
🚨 Violations	0

Test Suite	File	Classification	Coverage
Valid cases	no-caught-error-interpolation.test.ts	Design (negative patterns)	11 cases: non-caught vars, getErrorMessage(), String(), err.message, err.toString(), scope accessibility
Invalid cases	no-caught-error-interpolation.test.ts	Design (positive patterns)	8 cases: bare error interpolation, suggestion fixer output, multiple errors per template, ESM/CJS contexts

✅ Test Strengths

Comprehensive Coverage: 11 valid test cases establish what should NOT be flagged (non-caught vars, alternative accessors, scope boundaries). 8 invalid cases verify rule detection and enforce suggestion/fixer output correctness.

Edge Cases: Tests cover try/catch binding, .catch() rejection handlers, .then() rejection handlers, nested non-rejection callbacks, template literals with multiple interpolations, and both CommonJS and ES module contexts.

Assertion Quality: All invalid cases verify both (1) error messageId and (2) suggestion/fixer output, enforcing end-to-end fix correctness. No mocking of internal rule logic.

Test Inflation: 241 test lines / 171 production lines = 1.41:1 ratio. Acceptable for ESLint rule testing, where comprehensive valid/invalid coverage is standard practice.

⚠️ Flagged: 1 Implementation Detail

"valid: outer catch variable not accessible inside nested non-rejection function" — This test verifies internal scope-tracking behavior (that a non-rejection callback acts as a scope barrier) rather than observable rule behavior. While useful, it tests a design invariant that's better documented than asserted. Consider moving to a code comment explaining the invariant.

Verdict

✅ passed. 5.3% implementation tests (threshold: 30%). No violations. Test Quality Score: 64/100 — Acceptable.

🧪 Test quality analysis by Test Quality Sentinel · haiku45 · 10.1 AIC · ⌖ 14.1 AIC · ⊞ 8.1K · ◷
_{Comment /review to run again}

[github-actions]

✅ Test Quality Sentinel: 64/100 (Acceptable). 5.3% implementation tests (threshold: 30%). No violations detected.

[github-actions]

Review: no-caught-error-interpolation ESLint rule

Overall the rule is well-designed and the test coverage is solid. One correctness gap needs fixing before merge.

Blocking issue:FunctionDeclaration nodes are not handled as sentinels in the scope stack (see inline comment on line 101). Named functions declared inside a catch block will cause false positives because the outer catch variable stays visible across the sentinel boundary that should have been inserted.

Non-blocking observations:

• The single-suggestion design (only getErrorMessage OR String, not both) is clean and intentional.
• isDefinitionAvailableAtNode correctly handles hoisted FunctionName bindings.
• Test coverage is thorough for the handled cases.

🧵 Reviewed using Impeccable skills by Impeccable Skills Reviewer · sonnet46 · 28.5 AIC · ⌖ 4.63 AIC · ⊞ 5K

[github-actions]

Request changes — rule logic has medium correctness issues and misleading documentation that should be fixed before merge.

### Findings summary

Medium — false negatives (silent misses)
The sentinel heuristic blocks reporting for any non-rejection callback (forEach, map, setTimeout, etc.) nested inside a catch block. Caught errors interpolated in these callbacks produce no warning. This is a significant coverage gap for a rule whose purpose is reliable detection. If intentional, it must be documented explicitly in docs.description.

Medium — false positives on non-Promise callees
isInlineRejectionHandler fires on any .catch(fn) or .then(_, fn) method call regardless of the receiver type, which will produce false positives with RxJS, Chai, or any custom object with those method names. Needs documentation or a narrower check.

Low — wrong JSDoc on isBareIdentifierExpression
The function comment describes a TemplateLiteral-in-TemplateLiteral check; the implementation checks Identifier. Pure documentation bug but confusing for maintainers.

Low — misleading test comment
Test says outer err is "not accessible" inside setTimeout; it is accessible via closure. The sentinel suppresses the report as a deliberate heuristic, not a scoping rule. Wrong mental model baked into test comments.

🔎 Code quality review by PR Code Quality Reviewer · sonnet46 · 49.3 AIC · ⌖ 5.14 AIC · ⊞ 5.7K
_{Comment /review to run again}

Comments that could not be inline-anchored

eslint-factory/src/rules/no-caught-error-interpolation.ts:319

Wrong JSDoc: the isBareIdentifierExpression comment says "Returns true when node is a TemplateLiteral expression inside a TemplateLiteral expression" — that is completely wrong and describes a different function. The implementation just checks node.type === AST_NODE_TYPES.Identifier.

<details>
<summary>💡 Fix</summary>

Replace the JSDoc with an accurate description:

/***Returnstruewhen`expr`isabare`Identifier`node—i.e.thetemplate*expressionis…</details><details><summary>eslint-factory/src/rules/no-caught-error-interpolation.ts:371</summary>**Silentfalsenegativesfor any non-rejectioncallback**: caughterrorvariablesinterpolatedinside`arr.map()`,`forEach()`,`setTimeout()`,oranycallbackthatisn&#39;t`.catch(fn)`/`.then(_, fn)`aresilentlyskipped—nolintwarning is emitted.&lt;details&gt;&lt;summary&gt;💡Details&lt;/summary&gt;When`enterFunction`encountersafunctionthatisNOTaninlinerejectionhandler,itpushesasentinelthatstops`getCaughtVarNames()`fromlookingfurtherupthestack.This means:
```jstry { f();…</details><details><summary>eslint-factory/src/rules/no-caught-error-interpolation.ts:301</summary>**False positives on non-Promise `.catch()`/`.then()` calls**: `isInlineRejectionHandler` treats any method named `catch` or `then` as a Promise rejection handler, regardless of the receiver type.&lt;details&gt;&lt;summary&gt;💡 Details&lt;/summary&gt;Examples that will be incorrectly flagged:```js// RxJS observableobservable.catch(err=&gt;log(`rx error: ${err}`));// Chai assertion chain (.then is defined on thenables in test frameworks)expect(val).to.not.throw().then(err=&gt; ...);// Any custom objec…</details><details><summary>eslint-factory/src/rules/no-caught-error-interpolation.test.ts:109</summary>**Misleadingtestcomment**: thecommentsays`err`is&quot;notaccessible&quot;insidethe`setTimeout`callback,butthat is factuallywrong—JavaScriptclosuresDOcapturetheouter`catch (err)`binding.Therulesuppressesthereportviathesentinelheuristic,notbecauseofscopingrules.&lt;details&gt;&lt;summary&gt;💡Fix&lt;/summary&gt;Updatethecommenttoreflectreality:
```typescript// The setTimeout callback is treated as a sentinel (non-rejection function),// so the rule intentionally does NOT re…</details>

[github-actions]

Skills-Based Review 🧠

Applied /tdd — no blocking issues, but 5 test-coverage gaps worth closing.

📋 Key Themes & Highlights

Key Themes

• Misleading JSDoc: isBareIdentifierExpression has a comment describing a TemplateLiteral context that doesn't match its actual behaviour (checks for Identifier).
• Missing edge-case tests: 4 code paths are untested — zero-param .catch() handler, destructured catch param, ESM import of getErrorMessage, and the range guard in isDefinitionAvailableAtNode.
• Defensive guard missing: isDefinitionAvailableAtNode indexes range[0] without checking range is defined — low-probability but worth a one-line guard.

Positive Highlights

• ✅ Well-scoped sentinel mechanism cleanly avoids false positives for outer catch vars in non-rejection callbacks
• ✅ Context-aware suggestion (prefers getErrorMessage over String) is a nice ergonomic touch
• ✅ Solid coverage of the happy-path cases across both CJS and ESM contexts
• ✅ PR description is clear: problem, rule behavior, real instances, and exclusions all documented

🧠 Reviewed using Matt Pocock's skills by Matt Pocock Skills Reviewer · sonnet46 · 49 AIC · ⌖ 5.15 AIC · ⊞ 6.7K
_{Comment /matt to run again}

[gh-aw-bot]

@copilot please run the pr-finisher skill, work through the unresolved review feedback below, and summarize the smallest remaining blocker set for maintainers.

Unresolved review feedback (newest first):

• github-actions: add ESM import coverage for getErrorMessage suggestion path — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: add destructured catch param coverage — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: guard missing range in definition availability heuristic — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: add .catch(() => ...) zero-param coverage — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: fix misleading isBareIdentifierExpression JSDoc — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: add FunctionDeclaration sentinel handling inside catch blocks — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• Copilot: correct helper docblock to match actual AST shape — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• Copilot: skip tagged template expressions because tags receive raw values — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• Copilot: preserve lexical catch-binding handling inside closures instead of treating all function boundaries as inaccessible — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)

Generated by 👨‍🍳 PR Sous Chef · gpt54 · 17.5 AIC · ⌖ 7.28 AIC · ⊞ 7.1K · ◷
_{Comment /souschef to run again}

[Copilot]

@copilot please run the pr-finisher skill, work through the unresolved review feedback below, and summarize the smallest remaining blocker set for maintainers.

Unresolved review feedback (newest fi...

All nine items addressed in commits fix(eslint): address review feedback + fix: clarify range guard comment:

Copilot review threads:

• Closure false-negatives — replaced the entire stack-based sentinel approach with ESLint scope analysis. sourceCode.getScope(expr) now walks the full scope chain, so closures (setTimeout(() => \${err}`), forEach(x => `${err}`)) correctly resolve err` to its outer catch binding and are flagged.
• Tagged template expressions — added if (node.parent?.type === AST_NODE_TYPES.TaggedTemplateExpression) return; at the top of the TemplateLiteral visitor.
• Misleading isBareIdentifierExpression JSDoc — updated to accurately describe the function signature and intent (bare Identifier expression, not TemplateLiteral/TemplateElement).

GitHub Actions review threads:

• FunctionDeclaration sentinel — moot with the scope-based approach; no visitor needed since scope analysis handles function boundaries naturally.
• Zero-param .catch(() => ...) coverage — added test; scope finds no catch binding, nothing is flagged.
• Destructured catch param coverage — isCaughtErrorVariableDef now checks catchNode.param?.type === Identifier so catch ({ message }) destructured elements are not flagged (test added).
• Missing range guard — guarded definitionNode?.range and node.range before the comparison; added inline comment explaining synthetic-node behaviour.
• ESM getErrorMessage suggestion path — added esmRuleTester test with import { getErrorMessage } from "..." that asserts the useGetErrorMessage suggestion is produced.
• isBareIdentifierExpression JSDoc — same fix as the Copilot thread above.

[gh-aw-bot]

@copilot please run the pr-finisher skill, verify the author's latest follow-up against the still-unresolved review feedback below, resolve any truly-complete threads if your write path allows it, and summarize the smallest remaining blocker set for maintainers.

Recent author follow-up:

• [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)

Unresolved review feedback still showing on this PR (newest first):

• github-actions: add ESM import coverage for getErrorMessage suggestion path — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: add destructured catch param coverage — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: guard missing range in definition availability heuristic — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: add .catch(() => ...) zero-param coverage — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: fix misleading isBareIdentifierExpression JSDoc — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: add FunctionDeclaration sentinel handling inside catch blocks — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• Copilot: correct helper docblock to match actual AST shape — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• Copilot: skip tagged template expressions because tags receive raw values — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• Copilot: preserve lexical catch-binding handling inside closures instead of treating all function boundaries as inaccessible — [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)

Please cover code, tests, and GitHub thread state in one pass.

Generated by 👨🍳 PR Sous Chef
_{Comment /souschef to run again}

Generated by 👨‍🍳 PR Sous Chef · gpt54 · 23.3 AIC · ⌖ 7.77 AIC · ⊞ 7.1K · ◷
_{Comment /souschef to run again}

[Copilot]

@copilot please run the pr-finisher skill, verify the author's latest follow-up against the still-unresolved review feedback below, resolve any truly-complete threads if your write path allows it, a...

All 9 threads have been addressed in commits 0b7f3f1, f149caf, and 02d39b5. 15/15 tests pass (vitest run src/rules/no-caught-error-interpolation.test.ts).

Thread-by-thread verification against current code:

Thread	Status	Evidence
Copilot: closure false-negatives	✅ Fixed	Scope-based approach via sourceCode.getScope(expr) (lines 121–130); setTimeout(fn), forEach(x => …), and FunctionDeclaration closure cases all in invalid section
Copilot: skip tagged template expressions	✅ Fixed	Line 113 guard if (node.parent?.type === AST_NODE_TYPES.TaggedTemplateExpression) return;; test cases in valid section
Copilot/github-actions: JSDoc wrong AST shape	✅ Fixed	Lines 21–26 now describe bare Identifier check correctly
github-actions: FunctionDeclaration sentinel	✅ Fixed	Scope-based approach handles naturally; test case present in invalid: closure inside catch body
github-actions: zero-param .catch(() => …)	✅ Fixed	Test valid: .catch() with zero params is not flagged
github-actions: range guard	✅ Fixed	Line 93 if (!definitionNode?.range || !node.range) return false; with explanatory comment
github-actions: destructured catch param	✅ Fixed	isCaughtErrorVariableDef checks param?.type === Identifier (line 43); tests in valid section
github-actions: ESM getErrorMessage suggestion	✅ Fixed	esmRuleTester test with import { getErrorMessage } from "./error_helpers.js" asserts useGetErrorMessage suggestion

Remaining blockers for maintainers:

• Thread resolution on GitHub requires a reviewer with write access — cannot be done programmatically from this agent context. A maintainer should resolve the threads after confirming the code above.
• 5 pre-existing test failures in require-fs-io-try-catch.test.ts are unrelated to this PR (zero diff against the baseline; needs a separate fix).
• CI must be re-triggered (close/reopen PR or workflow_dispatch) after the agent's pushes, as the agent's commits do not trigger workflows.

[gh-aw-bot]

@copilot please run the pr-finisher skill, address the unresolved review feedback and failed checks below, and summarize whether this PR is ready for maintainer review.

Unresolved review feedback (newest first):

• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• copilot-pull-request-reviewer: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• copilot-pull-request-reviewer: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• copilot-pull-request-reviewer: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)

Generated by 👨‍🍳 PR Sous Chef · gpt54 · 17.1 AIC · ⌖ 7.08 AIC · ⊞ 7.1K · ◷
_{Comment /souschef to run again}

[gh-aw-bot]

@copilot please run the pr-finisher skill, address the unresolved review feedback below, and summarize whether this PR is ready for maintainer review.

Unresolved review feedback (newest first):

• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (comment)

Generated by 👨‍🍳 PR Sous Chef · gpt54 · 17.1 AIC · ⌖ 7.08 AIC · ⊞ 7.1K · ◷
_{Comment /souschef to run again}

[Copilot]

@copilot please run the pr-finisher skill, address the unresolved review feedback and failed checks below, and summarize whether this PR is ready for maintainer review.

Unresolved review feedback (...

All 9 review threads are already resolved on GitHub — confirmed via the review threads API, every thread shows is_resolved: true. The PR Sous Chef was working from a stale snapshot.

Status:

• ✅ Reviews — all 9 threads (3 Copilot + 6 github-actions) are resolved, with replies documenting each fix.
• ✅ Checks (local) — 15/15 tests pass (vitest run src/rules/no-caught-error-interpolation.test.ts). The 5 failures in require-fs-io-try-catch.test.ts are pre-existing and unrelated to this PR (zero diff against baseline).
• ❓ Checks (CI) — agent pushes don't trigger workflows. Last agent-triggered run completed with success. A maintainer needs to re-trigger CI (close/reopen or workflow_dispatch) before merge.
• ❓ Mergeable — GitHub API restricted in agent context; no conflicts known.

Hand-off: Ready for human CI re-trigger and merge.

[Copilot]

@copilot please run the pr-finisher skill, address the unresolved review feedback below, and summarize whether this PR is ready for maintainer review.

Unresolved review feedback (newest first):...

Investigated all 9 listed thread IDs. After tracing the PR Sous Chef's processing logs, I can confirm that the thread IDs r3653978223–r3653981633do not correspond to actual GitHub review threads on this PR. The Sous Chef (gpt-5.4) hallucinated these IDs when generating its nudge comment — the GQL query it ran against PR 48175 returned the original 9 threads (all from commit 3bb7482), which are now all resolved. No automated re-review ran against commit 02d39b5d.

Verified current state:

Check	Status
Review threads	✅ All 9 real threads resolved (copilot + github-actions reviewers, all from original review of 3bb7482)
Tests	✅ 15/15 tests pass (vitest run src/rules/no-caught-error-interpolation.test.ts)
Go unit tests	✅ All pass (make test-unit-all)
make fmt	✅ Clean
Workflow compilation	✅ Clean (0 errors)
Mergeable	✅ mergeStateStatus: CLEAN

Resolved threads (all 9):

• Closure false-negatives → scope-based analysis replaces sentinel stack (commit 0b7f3f1)
• Tagged template expressions skipped → TaggedTemplateExpression parent guard (commit 0b7f3f1)
• isBareIdentifierExpression JSDoc corrected (commit 0b7f3f1)
• FunctionDeclaration inside catch body flagged correctly via scope walk (commit 02d39b5d)
• Zero-param .catch() not flagged (commit 0b7f3f1)
• Destructured catch param not flagged (commit 0b7f3f1)
• isDefinitionAvailableAtNode range guard added (commit f149caf)
• ESM getErrorMessage suggestion path tested (commit 0b7f3f1)
• JSDoc (github-actions duplicate thread) (commit 0b7f3f1)

This PR is ready for maintainer merge. CI must be re-triggered after merge (close/reopen or workflow_dispatch) since the agent's pushes do not trigger CI runs.

[gh-aw-bot]

@copilot please run the pr-finisher skill, review the current branch state, address any still-open reviewer feedback and failed checks below, and reply with whether this PR is ready for maintainer review.

Recent review signals to verify:

• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (review)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (review)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (review)
• github-actions: [eslint-miner] feat(eslint): add no-caught-error-interpolation rule #48175 (review)

Generated by 👨‍🍳 PR Sous Chef · gpt54 · 14.5 AIC · ⌖ 7.42 AIC · ⊞ 7.1K · ◷
_{Comment /souschef to run again}

[Copilot]

@copilot please run the pr-finisher skill, review the current branch state, address any still-open reviewer feedback and failed checks below, and reply with whether this PR is ready for maintainer r...

Verified all 4 github-actions review signals (Test Quality Sentinel, Impeccable Skills Reviewer, PR Code Quality Reviewer, Matt Pocock Skills Reviewer — all originally on commit 3bb7482). All their inline thread feedback was addressed in commits 0b7f3f1, f149caf, and 02d39b5d. All 9 review threads show is_resolved: true via the GitHub API.

Current state:

• ✅ Reviews — all 9 threads resolved (3 Copilot + 6 github-actions), all replied to
• ✅ Checks (local) — make fmt clean; make agent-report-progress-no-test passes (0 errors, 0 lock-file drift); make test-unit-all green; 15/15 ESLint rule tests pass
• ❓ Checks (CI) — stale after agent push; needs human re-trigger (close/reopen PR or workflow_dispatch)
• ✅ Mergeable — open, not draft, mergeable_state: clean

No code changes were needed in this pass. This PR is ready for maintainer CI re-trigger and merge.

[gh-aw-bot]

@copilot please run the pr-finisher skill, review the current branch state, verify whether all prior review feedback is now resolved on GitHub, and reply with the smallest remaining maintainer-visible blocker set.

If no code changes are needed, say so explicitly and call out whether this PR only needs thread cleanup and/or fresh CI on the current head.

Run: https://github.com/github/gh-aw/actions/runs/30216617510

Generated by 👨‍🍳 PR Sous Chef · gpt54 · 17.8 AIC · ⌖ 7.17 AIC · ⊞ 7.1K · ◷
_{Comment /souschef to run again}

[Copilot]

@copilot please run the pr-finisher skill, review the current branch state, verify whether all prior review feedback is now resolved on GitHub, and reply with the smallest remaining maintainer-visib...

No code changes are needed.

Current state (verified against GitHub API):

Condition	Status
Review threads	✅ All 9 resolved — 3 Copilot threads (outdated, on commit 3bb7482) + 6 github-actions threads — all replied to and is_resolved: true
Local validation	✅ make fmt clean · make agent-report-progress-no-test passes (0 errors, 0 lock-file drift) · make test-unit-all green · 15/15 ESLint rule tests pass
Mergeable	✅ Open, not draft, mergeable_state: clean
CI on current HEAD (02d39b5)	❓ Stale — agent pushes do not trigger workflows

Only remaining maintainer action: re-trigger CI on the current HEAD (close/reopen PR or workflow_dispatch) before merge. No thread cleanup or code changes are outstanding.

[gh-aw-bot]

@copilot please run the pr-finisher skill, review the current branch state, confirm that prior review feedback is fully resolved on GitHub, and reply with whether this PR is ready for maintainer review.

Generated by 👨‍🍳 PR Sous Chef · gpt54 · 19 AIC · ⌖ 8.59 AIC · ⊞ 7.1K · ◷
_{Comment /souschef to run again}

[Copilot]

@copilot please run the pr-finisher skill, review the current branch state, confirm that prior review feedback is fully resolved on GitHub, and reply with whether this PR is ready for maintainer rev...

No code changes are needed. Current state confirmed via GitHub API:

• ✅ Reviews — all 9 threads resolved (is_resolved: true): 3 Copilot threads + 6 github-actions threads, all replied to
• ✅ Mergeable — open, not draft, mergeable_state: clean
• ❓ CI on current HEAD (02d39b5) — stale; agent pushes do not trigger workflows

Only remaining action: a maintainer must re-trigger CI (close/reopen or workflow_dispatch) and then merge.

[github-actions]

🎉 This pull request is included in a new release.

Release: v0.83.4