Count the Unread Files Rather Than Assuming There Is One

[ptr727]

Fixes the finding Copilot raised on the promotion pull request #615, against code #613 shipped.

The defect

The status=COVERAGE_IS_PARTIAL line ended with "taken knowing one file of the diff has no review". The code knows only that the reviewed and changed counts differ. It never computed the difference.

Every partial on record skipped exactly one file, over four pull requests and seven rounds, which is where the wording came from. That is a measurement of those rounds rather than a property the state carries, so a round skipping two files would have been reported as skipping one, on the single line whose whole purpose is to inform a merge decision.

The fix

report_verdict now keeps the coverage line that decided PARTIAL and re-reads its counts, so the message reports the difference the run carries and agrees with the coverage=PARTIAL ratio printed beside it:

... taken knowing 1 of the 3 changed files has no review
... taken knowing 4 of the 9 changed files have no review

Re-reading cannot return None, because PARTIAL is reached only where that same line parsed, and the comment says so rather than leaving a reader to derive it.

Verification

• python3 scripts/test_pr_review.py, 175 tests, OK. The new case asserts both a one-file and a four-file gap, and it fails against the previous wording, confirmed by stashing the fix and re-running: FAILED (failures=2).
• The rest of the CI gate list run locally and green: spec/validate.py, test_prose_lint.py, test_repo_gate.py, spec/audit.py --selftest, gh-write-guard.py --selftest, repo_gate.py, and both prose_lint.py invocations.
• ruff reports 22 findings across these two files, all pre-existing and none inside the changed hunks, and the hub's CI does not run it over scripts/.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This pull request fixes the status=COVERAGE_IS_PARTIAL wording in scripts/pr_review.py so it reports the actual number of unread files (computed from the parsed coverage line) instead of assuming the gap is always one file, and adds test coverage to lock in the corrected behavior.

Changes:

• Re-read the coverage line that determined PARTIAL and compute unread = changed - reviewed for accurate messaging.
• Update the partial-coverage status line to reflect the computed unread-file count with correct singular/plural grammar.
• Add a regression test covering both a 1-file gap and a 4-file gap.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
scripts/pr_review.py	Computes unread-file count from the parsed coverage line and prints it in the partial-coverage status message.
scripts/test_pr_review.py	Adds a test ensuring the partial-coverage message reports the computed unread-file count (including pluralization).

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

Suppressed comments (2)

scripts/pr_review.py:628

• This new 7-line comment block is unusually long and repeats closely related points. README.md says "Keep comments concise and only for the non-obvious, and never grow them on edit" (README.md:119); consider condensing this into 1-2 lines that capture the key invariant (derive unread count from the PARTIAL-triggering coverage line, and narrow the optional to avoid a crash).

 # The count comes from the line that decided PARTIAL, not from what past rounds skipped.
# Every partial measured here skipped exactly one file, across seven rounds.
# That is a measurement of those rounds rather than a property the state carries.
# Asserting it would be a claim this script cannot check on the run it prints for.
# None is unreachable while PARTIAL is set only where this same line parsed.
# It is narrowed rather than indexed, since the alternative is a crash on the gate's path.
# A crash there reads as this script being broken rather than as a round that read part.

scripts/pr_review.py:632

• In the defensive counts is None path, the message currently reads "taken knowing how much of the diff went unread, which could not be re-read...", which is self-contradictory. Rephrase the gap string so it reads coherently with the surrounding "taken knowing ..." clause.

 if counts is None:
gap = 'how much of the diff went unread, which could not be re-read from that line'
else:

[ptr727]

Answering both round 2 suppressed findings here, since a suppressed comment has no thread to resolve. Both accepted, both fixed in 5a7a6aa.

This new 7-line comment block is unusually long and repeats closely related points. README.md says "Keep comments concise and only for the non-obvious, and never grow them on edit" (README.md:119); consider condensing this into 1-2 lines that capture the key invariant (derive unread count from the PARTIAL-triggering coverage line, and narrow the optional to avoid a crash).

Correct, and the rule cited is the one it broke. The block reached seven lines by accumulating a line per review round rather than by having seven things to say, which is the growing-on-edit the rule names.

It is two lines now, saying where the count comes from and why the optional is narrowed. The reasoning that came out of it, that every partial on record skipped exactly one file and that this is a measurement rather than a property of the state, is in the commit message and in this pull request's description, which is where a reader looks for why a change was made rather than what the code does.

In the defensive counts is None path, the message currently reads "taken knowing how much of the diff went unread, which could not be re-read...", which is self-contradictory. Rephrase the gap string so it reads coherently with the surrounding "taken knowing ..." clause.

Correct. Read against the clause it completes, it told a maintainer they knew the thing it went on to say could not be read.

It now completes as "taken knowing that the counts on that line could not be re-read, so the total is unknown", which is what that arm knows. The test asserting this arm still checks that no file count is printed, so a future rewording cannot quietly restore a number the branch never computed.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.