fix: resolve conflicts for issue 324

gitea_mcp_server.py

@@ -1764,6 +1764,51 @@ def record_live_review_mutation(pr_number: int, action: str, review_id: int | No
     _save_review_decision_lock(lock)
 
 
+def terminal_review_hard_stop_reasons(pr_number: int, operation: str) -> list[str]:
+    """Session hard-stop after a terminal live review mutation (#332).
+
+    After a terminal verdict is consumed in this run, the only permitted
+    continuation is the merge sequence for the same PR that was approved.
+    A REQUEST_CHANGES (or an approval of a different PR) blocks every
+    further review/mark-ready/merge mutation. An operator-approved
+    correction (#211) re-opens the review path only — never a cross-PR
+    merge.
+
+    *operation* is one of 'merge', 'mark_ready', or 'review'.
+    Returns [] when the operation may proceed.
+    """
+    lock = _load_review_decision_lock()
+    if lock is None:
+        return []
+    terminals = [
+        m for m in (lock.get("live_mutations") or [])
+        if m.get("action") in _TERMINAL_REVIEW_ACTIONS
+    ]
+    if not terminals:
+        return []
+    last = terminals[-1]
+    if (
+        operation == "merge"
+        and last.get("action") == "approve"
+        and last.get("pr_number") == pr_number
+    ):
+        return []
+    if operation in ("mark_ready", "review") and lock.get("correction_authorized"):
+        return []
+    if last.get("action") == "approve":
+        guidance = (
+            f"only the merge sequence for approved PR "
+            f"#{last.get('pr_number')} may continue"
+        )
+    else:
+        guidance = "the session must stop and produce a final report"
+    return [
+        "terminal review mutation already consumed in this run "
+        f"({last.get('action')} on PR #{last.get('pr_number')}); {guidance} "
+        "(fail closed, #332)"
+    ]
+
+
 # Patterns scrubbed from any surfaced error text so a credential can never leak.
 _SECRET_PREFIXES = ("token ", "Basic ")
 
@@ -2179,6 +2224,9 @@ def gitea_mark_final_review_decision(
         }
     org = resolved_org
     repo = resolved_repo
+    hard_stop = terminal_review_hard_stop_reasons(pr_number, "mark_ready")
+    if hard_stop:
+        return {"marked_ready": False, "reasons": hard_stop}
     if lock.get("live_mutations") and not lock.get("correction_authorized"):
         return {
             "marked_ready": False,
@@ -2196,6 +2244,33 @@ def gitea_mark_final_review_decision(
                 f"{sorted(_REVIEW_ACTIONS)}"
             ],
         }
+    if action == "request_changes":
+        # Duplicate request-changes suppression (#332): an unresolved
+        # REQUEST_CHANGES at the current head must not be duplicated.
+        feedback = gitea_get_pr_review_feedback(
+            pr_number, remote=remote, org=org, repo=repo)
+        if not feedback.get("success"):
+            return {
+                "marked_ready": False,
+                "reasons": [
+                    "could not verify existing request-changes state for "
+                    f"PR #{pr_number}; refusing to submit a possibly "
+                    "duplicate REQUEST_CHANGES (fail closed, #332)"
+                ],
+            }
+        if (
+            feedback.get("has_blocking_change_requests")
+            and not feedback.get("review_feedback_stale")
+        ):
+            return {
+                "marked_ready": False,
+                "reasons": [
+                    f"PR #{pr_number} already has an unresolved "
+                    "REQUEST_CHANGES at the current head SHA; do not "
+                    "duplicate the request-changes review (fail closed, "
+                    "#332)"
+                ],
+            }
     lock["final_review_decision_ready"] = True
     lock["ready_pr_number"] = pr_number
     lock["ready_action"] = action
@@ -2765,6 +2840,14 @@ def gitea_merge_pr(
         )
         return result
 
+    # Gate 2b — session hard-stop after a terminal review mutation (#332):
+    # merge may only continue for the same PR that was just approved.
+    # Local in-process check; zero API calls.
+    hard_stop = terminal_review_hard_stop_reasons(pr_number, "merge")
+    if hard_stop:
+        reasons.extend(hard_stop)
+        return result
+
     # Gate 3 — reuse #14 eligibility (identity + profile + merge-allowed +
     # author + self-merge block + open + mergeable/unknown fail-closed).
     # Read-only GETs only.

review_proofs.py

@@ -1231,7 +1231,8 @@ def build_final_report(checkout_proof, inventory, validation, contamination,
                        role_boundary=None, review_mutation=None,
                        report_text=None, review_decision_lock=None,
                        controller_handoff=None, capability_proof=None,
-                       sweep_proof=None, worktree_proof=None):
+                       sweep_proof=None, worktree_proof=None,
+                       baseline_validation=None, project_root=None):
     """Required behavior 6 + acceptance criteria: one report, distinct proofs.
 
     Combines the individual proof verdicts into the final-report fields the
@@ -1258,6 +1259,18 @@ def build_final_report(checkout_proof, inventory, validation, contamination,
         )
 
     empty_queue_report = assess_empty_queue_report(report_text)
+    if baseline_validation is None and report_text:
+        baseline_validation = assess_reviewer_baseline_validation_proof(
+            report_text=report_text,
+            project_root=project_root,
+        )
+    elif baseline_validation is None:
+        baseline_validation = {
+            "proven": True,
+            "block": False,
+            "reasons": [],
+            "violations": [],
+        }
 
     contamination_status = contamination.get("status", "unknown")
     checkout_proven = bool(checkout_proof.get("proven"))
@@ -1387,6 +1400,11 @@ def build_final_report(checkout_proof, inventory, validation, contamination,
             "empty-queue report missing or failed trust-gate proof (#198)"
         )
         downgrade_reasons.extend(empty_queue_report.get("reasons", []))
+    if not baseline_validation.get("proven"):
+        downgrade_reasons.append(
+            "reviewer baseline validation proof missing or failed (#325)"
+        )
+        downgrade_reasons.extend(baseline_validation.get("reasons", []))
 
     merge_allowed = (
         identity_eligible
@@ -1398,9 +1416,11 @@ def build_final_report(checkout_proof, inventory, validation, contamination,
         # #179: no merge without a proven final live-state recheck.
         and live_state_proven
         and worktree_proven
+        and baseline_validation.get("proven")
     )
 
     violations = []
+    violations.extend(baseline_validation.get("violations", []))
     if merge_performed and not merge_allowed:
         violations.append(
             "merge was performed/claimed although the proofs did not allow "
@@ -1452,6 +1472,10 @@ def build_final_report(checkout_proof, inventory, validation, contamination,
             else True
         ),
         "empty_queue_trust_gate_status": empty_queue_report.get("status"),
+        "baseline_validation_proven": bool(baseline_validation.get("proven")),
+        "baseline_validation_violations": list(
+            baseline_validation.get("violations") or []
+        ),
     }
 
 
@@ -3020,6 +3044,180 @@ def build_review_mutation_proof(run_log: list[dict]) -> dict:
     }
 
 
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Reviewer baseline validation (#325)
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+_TEST_VALIDATION_COMMAND_RE = re.compile(
+    r"(?:^|\s)(?:venv/)?(?:bin/)?(?:python\s+-m\s+)?"
+    r"(?:pytest|make\s+test|npm\s+test|cargo\s+test|go\s+test\b)",
+    re.IGNORECASE,
+)
+
+_PREEXISTING_FAILURE_CLAIM_RE = re.compile(
+    r"(?:\bsame\s+as\s+master\b|"
+    r"\bpre-?existing(?:\s+(?:on\s+)?master)?\b|"
+    r"\bfailures?\s+(?:are|is)\s+pre-?existing\b|"
+    r"\bmaster\s+also\s+fails?\b|"
+    r"\bfull-?suite\s+failures?\s+(?:are|is)\s+pre-?existing\b)",
+    re.IGNORECASE,
+)
+
+_REPORT_VALIDATION_CWD_RE = re.compile(
+    r"(?:working\s+directory|cwd|directory)\s*:\s*(\S+)",
+    re.IGNORECASE,
+)
+
+
+def _normalize_path(path: str) -> str:
+    return (path or "").replace("\\", "/").rstrip("/")
+
+
+def _path_under_branches(path: str, project_root: str | None = None) -> bool:
+    """True when *path* is inside the project's ``branches/`` directory."""
+    normalized = _normalize_path(path)
+    if not normalized:
+        return False
+    if "/branches/" in f"{normalized}/":
+        return True
+    if normalized.endswith("/branches"):
+        return True
+    if project_root:
+        root = _normalize_path(project_root)
+        if normalized.startswith(f"{root}/"):
+            rel = normalized[len(root) + 1 :]
+            return rel == "branches" or rel.startswith("branches/")
+    return False
+
+
+def _is_test_validation_command(command: str) -> bool:
+    return bool(_TEST_VALIDATION_COMMAND_RE.search((command or "").strip()))
+
+
+def _is_full_sha(value: str | None) -> bool:
+    return bool(value and _FULL_SHA.match((value or "").strip()))
+
+
+def assess_reviewer_baseline_validation_proof(
+    *,
+    validation_runs: list[dict] | None = None,
+    baseline_proof: dict | None = None,
+    report_text: str | None = None,
+    project_root: str | None = None,
+) -> dict:
+    """#325: reviewer validation and baseline comparison must use ``branches/``.
+
+    *validation_runs* entries: ``command``, ``working_directory`` (or ``cwd``),
+    optional ``project_root``.
+
+    *baseline_proof* keys when claiming pre-existing master failures:
+    ``worktree_path``, ``baseline_target_sha``, ``pr_head_sha``,
+    ``baseline_failures``, ``pr_failures``, ``failure_signatures_match``,
+    ``clean_before``, ``clean_after``.
+    """
+    reasons: list[str] = []
+    violations: list[str] = []
+    text = report_text or ""
+
+    runs = list(validation_runs or [])
+    pending_command = None
+    for raw_line in text.splitlines():
+        line = raw_line.strip().lstrip("-*").strip()
+        lower = line.lower()
+        if lower.startswith("validation command:"):
+            pending_command = line.split(":", 1)[1].strip()
+            continue
+        cwd_match = _REPORT_VALIDATION_CWD_RE.search(line)
+        if cwd_match:
+            cwd = cwd_match.group(1).strip().rstrip(",.;")
+            command = pending_command or line
+            if _is_test_validation_command(command):
+                runs.append(
+                    {
+                        "command": command,
+                        "working_directory": cwd,
+                        "project_root": project_root,
+                    }
+                )
+            pending_command = None
+
+    for run in runs:
+        command = (run.get("command") or "").strip()
+        if not command or not _is_test_validation_command(command):
+            continue
+        cwd = (run.get("working_directory") or run.get("cwd") or "").strip()
+        root = run.get("project_root") or project_root
+        if not cwd:
+            reasons.append(
+                "test validation command stated without working directory; "
+                "cannot prove branches-only execution (#325)"
+            )
+            continue
+        if not _path_under_branches(cwd, root):
+            violations.append(
+                f"test validation ran outside branches/ worktree: cwd={cwd!r}"
+            )
+            reasons.append(
+                "reviewer workflow must not run test suites in the main "
+                f"checkout; cwd {cwd!r} is not under branches/ (#325)"
+            )
+
+    claims_preexisting = bool(_PREEXISTING_FAILURE_CLAIM_RE.search(text))
+    if claims_preexisting:
+        proof = baseline_proof or {}
+        worktree = (proof.get("worktree_path") or "").strip()
+        if not worktree or not _path_under_branches(worktree, project_root):
+            reasons.append(
+                "pre-existing master failure claimed without a baseline "
+                "worktree path under branches/ (#325)"
+            )
+        if not _is_full_sha(proof.get("baseline_target_sha")):
+            reasons.append(
+                "pre-existing master failure claimed without "
+                "baseline_target_sha proof (#325)"
+            )
+        if not _is_full_sha(proof.get("pr_head_sha")):
+            reasons.append(
+                "pre-existing master failure claimed without pr_head_sha "
+                "proof (#325)"
+            )
+        baseline_failures = proof.get("baseline_failures")
+        pr_failures = proof.get("pr_failures")
+        if baseline_failures is None or pr_failures is None:
+            reasons.append(
+                "pre-existing master failure claimed without baseline and "
+                "PR failure listings (#325)"
+            )
+        if proof.get("failure_signatures_match") is not True:
+            reasons.append(
+                "pre-existing master failure claimed without proven matching "
+                "failure signatures (#325)"
+            )
+        if proof.get("clean_before") is not True:
+            reasons.append(
+                "baseline worktree clean-before validation not proven (#325)"
+            )
+        if proof.get("clean_after") is not True:
+            reasons.append(
+                "baseline worktree clean-after validation not proven (#325)"
+            )
+
+    proven = not reasons and not violations
+    return {
+        "proven": proven,
+        "block": bool(violations),
+        "claims_preexisting": claims_preexisting,
+        "reasons": reasons,
+        "violations": violations,
+        "safe_next_action": (
+            "create a clean baseline worktree under branches/, e.g. "
+            "branches/baseline-master-pr<N>, and rerun validation there"
+            if not proven
+            else "proceed"
+        ),
+    }
+
+
 # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 # Identity disclosure (#305)
 # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -3106,3 +3304,126 @@ def assess_reviewer_fallback_report(report_text, **kwargs):
     from reviewer_fallback import assess_reviewer_fallback_report as _assess
 
     return _assess(report_text, **kwargs)
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Git ref mutations (#297)
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+_GIT_REF_MUTATIONS_FIELD_RE = re.compile(
+    r"^\s*git ref mutations\s*:\s*(.+?)\s*$", re.I | re.M)
+_GIT_WORKTREE_MUTATIONS_NONE_RE = re.compile(
+    r"^\s*git/worktree mutations\s*:\s*none\b", re.I | re.M)
+
+_GIT_REF_MUTATING_FIRST_WORDS = frozenset(
+    {"fetch", "pull", "push", "merge", "update-ref"})
+_GIT_REF_MUTATING_PREFIXES = ("remote update", "branch -d", "branch -D",
+                              "reset --hard")
+
+
+def _command_text(entry):
+    if isinstance(entry, dict):
+        return str(entry.get("command") or "").strip()
+    return str(entry or "").strip()
+
+
+def _git_subcommand_line(command):
+    tokens = command.split()
+    if not tokens or tokens[0] != "git":
+        return None
+    return " ".join(tokens[1:])
+
+
+def git_ref_mutating_commands(command_log):
+    """Return logged commands that update git refs (#297).
+
+    ``git fetch`` and friends edit no files but move refs; they are never
+    read-only diagnostics.
+    """
+    out = []
+    for entry in command_log or []:
+        command = _command_text(entry)
+        rest = _git_subcommand_line(command)
+        if rest is None:
+            continue
+        first = rest.split()[0] if rest.split() else ""
+        if first in _GIT_REF_MUTATING_FIRST_WORDS:
+            out.append(command)
+            continue
+        if any(rest.startswith(prefix) for prefix in _GIT_REF_MUTATING_PREFIXES):
+            out.append(command)
+    return out
+
+
+def _fetch_targets(ref_commands):
+    """Extract ``<remote>/<branch>`` targets from git fetch commands."""
+    targets = []
+    for command in ref_commands:
+        rest = _git_subcommand_line(command) or ""
+        tokens = rest.split()
+        if not tokens or tokens[0] != "fetch":
+            continue
+        args = [t for t in tokens[1:] if not t.startswith("-")]
+        if len(args) >= 2:
+            targets.append(f"{args[0]}/{args[1]}")
+    return targets
+
+
+def assess_git_ref_mutation_report(report_text, *, command_log=None):
+    """#297: ref updates are Git ref mutations, not read-only diagnostics.
+
+    When the command log holds ref-updating commands, the report must carry
+    a non-none ``Git ref mutations`` entry (naming ``fetched
+    <remote>/<branch>`` for targeted fetches), may not claim ``Git/worktree
+    mutations: None``, and may not list the command as read-only.
+    """
+    text = report_text or ""
+    lower = text.lower()
+    reasons = []
+    ref_commands = git_ref_mutating_commands(command_log)
+    fetch_targets = _fetch_targets(ref_commands)
+
+    if ref_commands:
+        field = _GIT_REF_MUTATIONS_FIELD_RE.search(text)
+        value = field.group(1).strip().lower() if field else None
+        if not value or value == "none":
+            reasons.append(
+                "ref-updating commands ran but the report has no "
+                "'Git ref mutations' entry"
+            )
+        for target in fetch_targets:
+            if "fetched" not in lower or target.lower() not in lower:
+                reasons.append(
+                    "git fetch ran; report must state "
+                    f"'Git ref mutations: fetched {target}'"
+                )
+        if _GIT_WORKTREE_MUTATIONS_NONE_RE.search(text):
+            reasons.append(
+                "'Git/worktree mutations: None' rejected: ref-updating "
+                "commands ran"
+            )
+        for line in text.splitlines():
+            if "read-only" not in line.lower():
+                continue
+            for command in ref_commands:
+                if command.lower() in line.lower():
+                    reasons.append(
+                        "read-only diagnostics may not include ref-updating "
+                        f"command '{command}'"
+                    )
+
+    proven = not reasons
+    return {
+        "proven": proven,
+        "block": not proven,
+        "reasons": reasons,
+        "ref_mutating_commands": ref_commands,
+        "fetch_targets": fetch_targets,
+    }
+
+
+def assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof(report_text, **kwargs):
+    """#322: require conflict proof when skipping non-mergeable PRs."""
+    from reviewer_mergeability_skip import assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof as _assess
+
+    return _assess(report_text, **kwargs)

reviewer_mergeability_skip.py

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+"""Non-mergeable PR skip conflict-proof verifier for reviewer reports (#322)."""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import re
+from typing import Any
+
+_FULL_SHA = re.compile(r"\b[0-9a-f]{40}\b", re.IGNORECASE)
+_SHORT_SHA = re.compile(r"\b[0-9a-f]{7,39}\b", re.IGNORECASE)
+_PR_NUMBER_RE = re.compile(r"(?:\bPR\s*#?|#)(\d+)\b", re.IGNORECASE)
+_MERGEABILITY_FALSE_RE = re.compile(
+    r"(?:mergeable\s*:\s*false|not mergeable|non[- ]mergeable|mergeability\s*:\s*false|"
+    r"mergeability result\s*:\s*false)",
+    re.IGNORECASE,
+)
+_CONFLICT_PROOF_RE = re.compile(
+    r"(?:merge-tree|git merge-tree|gitea_view_pr|gitea_check_pr_eligibility|"
+    r"conflict proof|mergeability tool|merge simulation|conflicting files?)",
+    re.IGNORECASE,
+)
+_CONFLICTING_FILES_RE = re.compile(
+    r"(?:conflicting files?|conflict files?)\s*:\s*(.+)$",
+    re.IGNORECASE | re.MULTILINE,
+)
+_HEAD_CHANGED_RE = re.compile(
+    r"(?:head (?:changed|unchanged)|head sha (?:changed|unchanged)|"
+    r"head changed since|head unchanged since)",
+    re.IGNORECASE,
+)
+_MERGEABILITY_UNVERIFIED_RE = re.compile(
+    r"\bMERGEABILITY_UNVERIFIED\b",
+)
+
+
+def _pr_section(text: str, pr_number: int) -> str:
+    """Return report lines likely describing one skipped PR."""
+    lines = (text or "").splitlines()
+    chunks: list[str] = []
+    capture = False
+    token = f"#{pr_number}"
+    for line in lines:
+        lower = line.lower()
+        if token in lower or f"pr {pr_number}" in lower or f"pr#{pr_number}" in lower.replace(" ", ""):
+            capture = True
+            chunks.append(line)
+            continue
+        if capture:
+            if _PR_NUMBER_RE.search(line) and token not in line.lower():
+                break
+            if line.strip() == "" and len(chunks) > 3:
+                break
+            chunks.append(line)
+    if chunks:
+        return "\n".join(chunks)
+    return text or ""
+
+
+def _has_head_sha(text: str, head_sha: str | None) -> bool:
+    if not head_sha:
+        return bool(_FULL_SHA.search(text) or _SHORT_SHA.search(text))
+    head = head_sha.strip().lower()
+    if head in text.lower():
+        return True
+    if len(head) >= 7 and head[:7] in text.lower():
+        return True
+    return bool(_FULL_SHA.search(text))
+
+
+def assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof(
+    report_text: str,
+    *,
+    skipped_prs: list[dict] | None = None,
+) -> dict[str, Any]:
+    """Validate skipped non-mergeable PR documentation in reviewer reports (#322)."""
+    text = report_text or ""
+    reasons: list[str] = []
+    assessments: list[dict[str, Any]] = []
+
+    for entry in skipped_prs or []:
+        pr_number = entry.get("pr_number")
+        if pr_number is None:
+            reasons.append("skipped PR entry missing pr_number")
+            continue
+        pr_number = int(pr_number)
+        section = _pr_section(text, pr_number)
+        mergeable = entry.get("mergeable")
+        verified = entry.get("mergeability_verified")
+        classification = (entry.get("classification") or "").strip().upper()
+        head_sha = (entry.get("head_sha") or "").strip() or None
+
+        item_reasons: list[str] = []
+
+        if f"#{pr_number}" not in text.lower() and f"pr {pr_number}" not in text.lower():
+            item_reasons.append(f"skipped PR #{pr_number} not documented in final report")
+
+        if mergeable is False or verified is False:
+            if not _MERGEABILITY_UNVERIFIED_RE.search(section) and verified is False:
+                if "MERGEABILITY_UNVERIFIED" not in classification:
+                    item_reasons.append(
+                        f"PR #{pr_number} conflict proof unavailable; report must classify "
+                        "MERGEABILITY_UNVERIFIED"
+                    )
+            elif verified is not False:
+                if not _MERGEABILITY_FALSE_RE.search(section):
+                    item_reasons.append(
+                        f"PR #{pr_number} skip missing mergeability:false proof"
+                    )
+                if not _has_head_sha(section, head_sha):
+                    item_reasons.append(
+                        f"PR #{pr_number} skip missing current head SHA"
+                    )
+                if not _CONFLICT_PROOF_RE.search(section):
+                    item_reasons.append(
+                        f"PR #{pr_number} skip missing conflict proof command/tool"
+                    )
+                if entry.get("head_changed_since_prior_blocker") is not None:
+                    if not _HEAD_CHANGED_RE.search(section):
+                        item_reasons.append(
+                            f"PR #{pr_number} skip missing head-changed-since-blocker proof"
+                        )
+
+        if (
+            entry.get("conflicting_files")
+            and not _CONFLICTING_FILES_RE.search(section)
+            and not any(
+                path.lower() in section.lower()
+                for path in (entry.get("conflicting_files") or [])
+            )
+        ):
+            item_reasons.append(
+                f"PR #{pr_number} has conflicting files in session proof but "
+                "report omits file-level conflict proof"
+            )
+
+        proven = not item_reasons
+        assessments.append({
+            "pr_number": pr_number,
+            "proven": proven,
+            "classification": classification or (
+                "MERGEABILITY_UNVERIFIED" if verified is False else "NON_MERGEABLE_SKIPPED"
+            ),
+            "reasons": item_reasons,
+        })
+        reasons.extend(item_reasons)
+
+    proven = not reasons
+    return {
+        "proven": proven,
+        "block": not proven,
+        "downgraded": False,
+        "assessments": assessments,
+        "reasons": reasons,
+        "safe_next_action": (
+            "document each skipped non-mergeable PR with head SHA, mergeability result, "
+            "conflict proof command, conflicting files, and head-change status"
+            if reasons
+            else "proceed"
+        ),
+    }

tests/test_git_ref_mutation_report.py

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+"""Git ref mutations must be reported, never hidden as diagnostics (#297).
+
+``git fetch`` updates remote-tracking refs even though it edits no files.
+Reports that ran fetch (or any ref-updating command) must carry a
+``Git ref mutations`` entry and may not claim ``Git/worktree mutations:
+None`` or classify the fetch as read-only diagnostics.
+"""
+import sys
+import unittest
+
+sys.path.insert(0, str(__import__("pathlib").Path(__file__).resolve().parent.parent))
+
+import review_proofs
+
+
+def _assess(report, commands):
+    return review_proofs.assess_git_ref_mutation_report(
+        report, command_log=commands)
+
+
+class TestGitRefMutationDetection(unittest.TestCase):
+    def test_fetch_only_review_with_proper_ledger_passes(self):
+        report = "\n".join([
+            "Git ref mutations: fetched prgs/master",
+            "Review decision: APPROVE",
+        ])
+        res = _assess(report, ["git fetch prgs master"])
+        self.assertTrue(res["proven"], res["reasons"])
+        self.assertEqual(res["ref_mutating_commands"], ["git fetch prgs master"])
+
+    def test_fetch_without_ref_mutation_line_is_blocked(self):
+        report = "Review decision: APPROVE\nMutations: None\n"
+        res = _assess(report, ["git fetch prgs master"])
+        self.assertFalse(res["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(
+            any("git ref mutations" in r.lower() for r in res["reasons"]))
+
+    def test_fetch_with_remote_branch_requires_fetched_target_in_report(self):
+        report = "Git ref mutations: some refs updated\n"
+        res = _assess(report, ["git fetch prgs master"])
+        self.assertFalse(res["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(
+            any("prgs/master" in r for r in res["reasons"]))
+
+    def test_git_worktree_mutations_none_rejected_when_fetch_occurred(self):
+        report = "\n".join([
+            "Git ref mutations: fetched prgs/master",
+            "Git/worktree mutations: None",
+        ])
+        res = _assess(report, ["git fetch prgs master"])
+        self.assertFalse(res["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(
+            any("git/worktree mutations" in r.lower() for r in res["reasons"]))
+
+    def test_fetch_classified_as_read_only_diagnostics_rejected(self):
+        report = "\n".join([
+            "Git ref mutations: fetched prgs/master",
+            "Read-only diagnostics: git fetch prgs master, git status",
+        ])
+        res = _assess(report, ["git fetch prgs master"])
+        self.assertFalse(res["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(
+            any("read-only" in r.lower() for r in res["reasons"]))
+
+    def test_worktree_creation_is_not_a_ref_mutation(self):
+        report = "Worktree mutations: created branches/review-pr9\n"
+        res = _assess(report, ["git worktree add branches/review-pr9 prgs/master"])
+        self.assertTrue(res["proven"], res["reasons"])
+        self.assertEqual(res["ref_mutating_commands"], [])
+
+    def test_merge_command_counts_as_ref_mutation(self):
+        report = "Review decision: APPROVE\n"
+        res = _assess(report, ["git merge --no-ff feat/x"])
+        self.assertFalse(res["proven"])
+        self.assertIn("git merge --no-ff feat/x", res["ref_mutating_commands"])
+
+    def test_cleanup_branch_delete_counts_as_ref_mutation(self):
+        report = "Cleanup mutations: deleted branch feat/x\n"
+        res = _assess(report, ["git branch -d feat/x"])
+        self.assertFalse(res["proven"])
+        self.assertIn("git branch -d feat/x", res["ref_mutating_commands"])
+
+    def test_no_mutation_blocked_handoff_passes(self):
+        report = "\n".join([
+            "Git/worktree mutations: None",
+            "Current status: blocked handoff, no mutations performed",
+        ])
+        res = _assess(report, ["git status --porcelain", "git log --oneline -1"])
+        self.assertTrue(res["proven"], res["reasons"])
+        self.assertEqual(res["ref_mutating_commands"], [])
+
+    def test_command_log_dict_entries_supported(self):
+        report = "Git ref mutations: fetched prgs/master\n"
+        res = _assess(report, [{"command": "git fetch prgs master"}])
+        self.assertTrue(res["proven"], res["reasons"])
+        self.assertEqual(
+            res["ref_mutating_commands"], ["git fetch prgs master"])
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    unittest.main()

tests/test_llm_workflow_split.py

@@ -127,4 +127,10 @@ def test_reviewer_fallback_verifier_exported():
 def test_create_issue_final_report_verifier_exported():
     from review_proofs import assess_create_issue_final_report
 
-    assert callable(assess_create_issue_final_report)
+    assert callable(assess_create_issue_final_report)
+
+
+def test_non_mergeable_skip_verifier_exported():
+    from review_proofs import assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof
+
+    assert callable(assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof)

tests/test_mcp_server.py

@@ -48,6 +48,21 @@ import mcp_server
 
 FAKE_AUTH = "Basic dGVzdDp0ZXN0"
 
+_NO_BLOCKER_FEEDBACK = {
+    "success": True,
+    "has_blocking_change_requests": False,
+    "review_feedback_stale": False,
+}
+
+
+def _mark_request_changes_ready(pr_number=8, **kwargs):
+    """Mark a request_changes decision ready with the #332 duplicate-
+    suppression feedback fetch stubbed to 'no existing blocker'."""
+    with patch("mcp_server.gitea_get_pr_review_feedback",
+               return_value=dict(_NO_BLOCKER_FEEDBACK)):
+        return gitea_mark_final_review_decision(
+            pr_number, "request_changes", **kwargs)
+
 
 def _formal_review(reviewer, verdict, sha="abc123", review_id=1):
     return {
@@ -1839,7 +1854,7 @@ class TestSubmitPrReview(unittest.TestCase):
     @patch("mcp_server.api_request")
     @patch("mcp_server.get_auth_header", return_value=FAKE_AUTH)
     def test_request_changes_succeeds_when_eligible(self, _auth, mock_api):
-        gitea_mark_final_review_decision(8, "request_changes", remote="prgs")
+        _mark_request_changes_ready(remote="prgs")
         mock_api.side_effect = [
             {"login": "reviewer-bot"}, self._pr("author-bot"),
             {"id": 9, "state": "REQUEST_CHANGES"},
@@ -1862,7 +1877,7 @@ class TestSubmitPrReview(unittest.TestCase):
         self.assertEqual(post_calls[0].args[3]["event"], "REQUEST_CHANGES")
 
     def test_request_changes_blocked_without_eligibility(self):
-        gitea_mark_final_review_decision(8, "request_changes", remote="prgs")
+        _mark_request_changes_ready(remote="prgs")
         with patch("mcp_server.get_auth_header", return_value=FAKE_AUTH) as _a, \
                 patch("mcp_server.api_request") as mock_api:
             mock_api.side_effect = [{"login": "reviewer-bot"}, self._pr("author-bot")]
@@ -2144,7 +2159,7 @@ class TestSubmitPrReview(unittest.TestCase):
                 reason="operator approved correcting mistaken approve",
                 operator_authorized=True,
             )
-            gitea_mark_final_review_decision(8, "request_changes", remote="prgs")
+            _mark_request_changes_ready(remote="prgs")
             second = gitea_submit_pr_review(
                 pr_number=8, action="request_changes", remote="prgs",
                 final_review_decision_ready=True,

tests/test_review_proofs.py

@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ from review_proofs import (  # noqa: E402
     ISSUE_SELECTION_CONTINUATION_EXPLICIT,
     ISSUE_SELECTION_REPRESENTED_BY_OPEN_PR,
     assess_author_pr_report,
+    assess_reviewer_baseline_validation_proof,
     assess_capability_evidence,
     assess_capability_proof,
     assess_contradictory_no_pr_claim,
@@ -2160,5 +2161,125 @@ class TestCreateIssueFinalReport(unittest.TestCase):
         self.assertTrue(result["downgraded"])
 
 
+class TestReviewerBaselineValidationProof(unittest.TestCase):
+    """Issue #325: baseline validation must use branches/ worktrees."""
+
+    ROOT = "/repo/Gitea-Tools"
+
+    def _good_baseline_proof(self, **overrides):
+        proof = {
+            "worktree_path": f"{self.ROOT}/branches/baseline-master-pr280",
+            "baseline_target_sha": PINNED,
+            "pr_head_sha": OTHER,
+            "baseline_failures": ["tests/test_foo.py::test_bar"],
+            "pr_failures": ["tests/test_foo.py::test_bar"],
+            "failure_signatures_match": True,
+            "clean_before": True,
+            "clean_after": True,
+        }
+        proof.update(overrides)
+        return proof
+
+    def test_main_checkout_test_run_blocks(self):
+        result = assess_reviewer_baseline_validation_proof(
+            validation_runs=[
+                {
+                    "command": "venv/bin/pytest tests/",
+                    "working_directory": self.ROOT,
+                    "project_root": self.ROOT,
+                }
+            ],
+            project_root=self.ROOT,
+        )
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(result["block"])
+        self.assertTrue(result["violations"])
+
+    def test_branches_worktree_test_run_passes(self):
+        result = assess_reviewer_baseline_validation_proof(
+            validation_runs=[
+                {
+                    "command": "venv/bin/pytest tests/",
+                    "working_directory": f"{self.ROOT}/branches/review-pr-280",
+                    "project_root": self.ROOT,
+                }
+            ],
+            project_root=self.ROOT,
+        )
+        self.assertTrue(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_preexisting_claim_without_baseline_proof_fails(self):
+        result = assess_reviewer_baseline_validation_proof(
+            report_text=(
+                "Validation: full-suite failures are pre-existing on master."
+            ),
+            project_root=self.ROOT,
+        )
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(result["claims_preexisting"])
+
+    def test_preexisting_claim_with_complete_baseline_proof_passes(self):
+        result = assess_reviewer_baseline_validation_proof(
+            report_text="Failures are pre-existing on master.",
+            baseline_proof=self._good_baseline_proof(),
+            project_root=self.ROOT,
+        )
+        self.assertTrue(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_mismatched_failures_block_preexisting_claim(self):
+        result = assess_reviewer_baseline_validation_proof(
+            report_text="Same as master.",
+            baseline_proof=self._good_baseline_proof(
+                failure_signatures_match=False,
+                pr_failures=["tests/test_other.py::test_other"],
+            ),
+            project_root=self.ROOT,
+        )
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_report_parsed_main_checkout_cwd_blocks(self):
+        result = assess_reviewer_baseline_validation_proof(
+            report_text=(
+                "- Validation command: venv/bin/pytest tests/\n"
+                f"- Working directory: {self.ROOT}\n"
+            ),
+            project_root=self.ROOT,
+        )
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(result["block"])
+
+    def test_build_final_report_downgrades_main_checkout_validation(self):
+        report = build_final_report(
+            checkout_proof=_good_checkout(),
+            inventory=_good_inventory(),
+            validation=_good_validation(),
+            contamination=_good_contamination(),
+            identity_eligible=True,
+            merge_performed=False,
+            issue_status_verified=True,
+            capability_evidence=_good_capability_evidence(),
+            sweep=_good_sweep(),
+            live_state=_good_live_state(),
+            role_boundary=_good_role_boundary(),
+            review_mutation=_good_review_mutation(),
+            controller_handoff=_good_handoff(),
+            capability_proof=_good_capability_proof(),
+            sweep_proof=_good_secret_sweep(),
+            worktree_proof={
+                "worktree_path": "/repo/branches/review-feat-issue-224",
+                "porcelain_status": "",
+                "pr_scope_files": ["docs/wiki/Repositories.md"],
+                "scratch_used": True,
+            },
+            report_text=(
+                "- Validation command: venv/bin/pytest tests/\n"
+                f"- Working directory: {self.ROOT}\n"
+            ),
+            project_root=self.ROOT,
+        )
+        self.assertNotEqual(report["grade"], "A")
+        self.assertFalse(report["baseline_validation_proven"])
+
+
 if __name__ == "__main__":
     unittest.main()

tests/test_reviewer_mergeability_skip.py

@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
+"""Tests for non-mergeable skip conflict-proof verifier (#322)."""
+import sys
+import unittest
+from pathlib import Path
+
+sys.path.insert(0, str(Path(__file__).resolve().parent.parent))
+
+from reviewer_mergeability_skip import assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof  # noqa: E402
+
+HEAD_A = "0fdc8f582026b72a229d59a172c0a63ac4aaeaf9"
+HEAD_B = "1111111111111111111111111111111111111111"
+
+
+def _good_skip_report(pr_number: int, head: str, files: str = "review_proofs.py") -> str:
+    return "\n".join([
+        f"Skipped PR #{pr_number} (non-mergeable).",
+        f"- PR number: #{pr_number}",
+        f"- Current head SHA: {head}",
+        "- Mergeability result: false",
+        "- Conflict proof command: git merge-tree $(git merge-base prgs/master prgs/feat) prgs/master prgs/feat",
+        f"- Conflicting files: {files}",
+        "- Head unchanged since prior blocker",
+        "- Blocking category: merge conflict",
+    ])
+
+
+class TestNonMergeableSkipProof(unittest.TestCase):
+    def test_no_skips_passes(self):
+        report = "Selected PR #203 for review. No earlier PRs skipped."
+        result = assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof(report, skipped_prs=[])
+        self.assertTrue(result["proven"])
+        self.assertFalse(result["block"])
+
+    def test_documented_non_mergeable_skip_passes(self):
+        report = _good_skip_report(282, HEAD_A)
+        result = assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof(
+            report,
+            skipped_prs=[{
+                "pr_number": 282,
+                "mergeable": False,
+                "head_sha": HEAD_A,
+                "mergeability_verified": True,
+                "conflicting_files": ["review_proofs.py"],
+                "head_changed_since_prior_blocker": False,
+            }],
+        )
+        self.assertTrue(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_skip_without_conflict_proof_blocks(self):
+        report = "\n".join([
+            "Skipped PR #284 because it was not mergeable.",
+            f"Head SHA: {HEAD_B}",
+        ])
+        result = assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof(
+            report,
+            skipped_prs=[{
+                "pr_number": 284,
+                "mergeable": False,
+                "head_sha": HEAD_B,
+                "mergeability_verified": True,
+            }],
+        )
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(result["block"])
+        self.assertTrue(any("conflict proof" in r for r in result["reasons"]))
+
+    def test_missing_head_sha_blocks(self):
+        report = _good_skip_report(282, HEAD_A).replace(HEAD_A, "")
+        result = assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof(
+            report,
+            skipped_prs=[{
+                "pr_number": 282,
+                "mergeable": False,
+                "head_sha": HEAD_A,
+                "mergeability_verified": True,
+            }],
+        )
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_mergeability_unverified_classification_passes(self):
+        report = "\n".join([
+            "Skipped PR #282.",
+            "Classification: MERGEABILITY_UNVERIFIED",
+            "Conflict proof could not be retrieved in this session.",
+        ])
+        result = assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof(
+            report,
+            skipped_prs=[{
+                "pr_number": 282,
+                "mergeable": False,
+                "mergeability_verified": False,
+            }],
+        )
+        self.assertTrue(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_unverified_without_classification_blocks(self):
+        report = "Skipped PR #282 due to conflicts."
+        result = assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof(
+            report,
+            skipped_prs=[{
+                "pr_number": 282,
+                "mergeable": False,
+                "mergeability_verified": False,
+            }],
+        )
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(any("MERGEABILITY_UNVERIFIED" in r for r in result["reasons"]))
+
+    def test_non_mergeable_without_file_details_still_passes_with_command(self):
+        report = _good_skip_report(284, HEAD_B, files="not available")
+        result = assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof(
+            report,
+            skipped_prs=[{
+                "pr_number": 284,
+                "mergeable": False,
+                "head_sha": HEAD_B,
+                "mergeability_verified": True,
+                "conflicting_files": [],
+            }],
+        )
+        self.assertTrue(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_stale_head_requires_head_change_field(self):
+        report = _good_skip_report(282, HEAD_A).replace(
+            "- Head unchanged since prior blocker",
+            "",
+        )
+        result = assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof(
+            report,
+            skipped_prs=[{
+                "pr_number": 282,
+                "mergeable": False,
+                "head_sha": HEAD_A,
+                "mergeability_verified": True,
+                "head_changed_since_prior_blocker": True,
+            }],
+        )
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(any("head-changed" in r for r in result["reasons"]))
+
+
+class TestExport(unittest.TestCase):
+    def test_review_proofs_reexport(self):
+        from review_proofs import assess_non_mergeable_skip_proof as exported
+
+        self.assertTrue(callable(exported))
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    unittest.main()

tests/test_terminal_review_hard_stop.py

@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
+"""Tests for the session hard-stop after a terminal review mutation (#332).
+
+Extends the single-terminal-decision machinery (#211): after a live
+REQUEST_CHANGES the run must stop; after an APPROVE only the merge sequence
+for that same PR may continue; a different PR can never be reviewed or
+merged in the same run; duplicate REQUEST_CHANGES at an unchanged head is
+suppressed.
+"""
+import os
+import unittest
+from unittest.mock import patch
+
+import mcp_server
+
+
+def _lock(mutations=None, correction=False):
+    return {
+        "task": "review_pr",
+        "remote": "prgs",
+        "session_pid": os.getpid(),
+        "session_profile": "prgs-reviewer",
+        "session_profile_lock": "",
+        "final_review_decision_ready": False,
+        "ready_pr_number": None,
+        "ready_action": None,
+        "ready_expected_head_sha": None,
+        "ready_remote": None,
+        "ready_org": None,
+        "ready_repo": None,
+        "live_mutations": list(mutations or []),
+        "correction_authorized": correction,
+        "correction_reason": None,
+    }
+
+
+def _seed(mutations=None, correction=False):
+    mcp_server._save_review_decision_lock(_lock(mutations, correction))
+
+
+APPROVED_A = {"pr_number": 5, "action": "approve", "review_id": 1,
+              "review_state": "approve"}
+RC_A = {"pr_number": 5, "action": "request_changes", "review_id": 2,
+        "review_state": "request_changes"}
+
+
+class TestTerminalHardStopReasons(unittest.TestCase):
+    def tearDown(self):
+        mcp_server._save_review_decision_lock(None)
+
+    def test_no_lock_no_reasons(self):
+        mcp_server._save_review_decision_lock(None)
+        self.assertEqual(
+            mcp_server.terminal_review_hard_stop_reasons(5, "merge"), [])
+
+    def test_no_terminal_mutation_no_reasons(self):
+        _seed()
+        self.assertEqual(
+            mcp_server.terminal_review_hard_stop_reasons(5, "merge"), [])
+
+    def test_request_changes_blocks_everything(self):
+        _seed([RC_A])
+        for op in ("merge", "mark_ready", "review"):
+            for pr in (5, 6):
+                reasons = mcp_server.terminal_review_hard_stop_reasons(pr, op)
+                self.assertTrue(reasons, f"{op}/{pr}")
+                self.assertIn("request_changes on PR #5", reasons[0])
+                self.assertIn("#332", reasons[0])
+
+    def test_approve_allows_same_pr_merge_only(self):
+        _seed([APPROVED_A])
+        self.assertEqual(
+            mcp_server.terminal_review_hard_stop_reasons(5, "merge"), [])
+        self.assertTrue(
+            mcp_server.terminal_review_hard_stop_reasons(6, "merge"))
+        self.assertTrue(
+            mcp_server.terminal_review_hard_stop_reasons(6, "mark_ready"))
+        self.assertTrue(
+            mcp_server.terminal_review_hard_stop_reasons(6, "review"))
+
+    def test_correction_reopens_review_path_only(self):
+        _seed([RC_A], correction=True)
+        self.assertEqual(
+            mcp_server.terminal_review_hard_stop_reasons(5, "mark_ready"), [])
+        self.assertEqual(
+            mcp_server.terminal_review_hard_stop_reasons(5, "review"), [])
+        # correction never opens a cross-PR merge
+        self.assertTrue(
+            mcp_server.terminal_review_hard_stop_reasons(6, "merge"))
+
+
+class TestMergeHardStopWiring(unittest.TestCase):
+    def tearDown(self):
+        mcp_server._save_review_decision_lock(None)
+
+    def test_merge_blocked_after_request_changes(self):
+        _seed([RC_A])
+        result = mcp_server.gitea_merge_pr(
+            pr_number=6, confirmation="MERGE PR 6", remote="prgs")
+        self.assertFalse(result["performed"])
+        self.assertTrue(
+            any("#332" in r for r in result["reasons"]), result["reasons"])
+
+    def test_merge_of_other_pr_blocked_after_approve(self):
+        _seed([APPROVED_A])
+        result = mcp_server.gitea_merge_pr(
+            pr_number=6, confirmation="MERGE PR 6", remote="prgs")
+        self.assertFalse(result["performed"])
+        self.assertTrue(
+            any("#332" in r for r in result["reasons"]), result["reasons"])
+
+
+class TestMarkFinalHardStopWiring(unittest.TestCase):
+    def tearDown(self):
+        mcp_server._save_review_decision_lock(None)
+
+    def test_mark_ready_blocked_after_terminal_mutation(self):
+        _seed([RC_A])
+        result = mcp_server.gitea_mark_final_review_decision(
+            pr_number=6, action="approve", remote="prgs")
+        self.assertFalse(result["marked_ready"])
+        self.assertTrue(
+            any("#332" in r for r in result["reasons"]), result["reasons"])
+
+
+def _feedback(blocking, stale=False, success=True):
+    return {
+        "success": success,
+        "has_blocking_change_requests": blocking,
+        "review_feedback_stale": stale,
+        "current_head_sha": "abc123",
+    }
+
+
+class TestDuplicateRequestChangesSuppression(unittest.TestCase):
+    def tearDown(self):
+        mcp_server._save_review_decision_lock(None)
+
+    def test_duplicate_request_changes_blocked_at_same_head(self):
+        _seed()
+        with patch.object(mcp_server, "gitea_get_pr_review_feedback",
+                          return_value=_feedback(blocking=True, stale=False)):
+            result = mcp_server.gitea_mark_final_review_decision(
+                pr_number=6, action="request_changes", remote="prgs")
+        self.assertFalse(result["marked_ready"])
+        self.assertTrue(
+            any("duplicate" in r for r in result["reasons"]),
+            result["reasons"])
+
+    def test_request_changes_allowed_when_prior_blocker_stale(self):
+        _seed()
+        with patch.object(mcp_server, "gitea_get_pr_review_feedback",
+                          return_value=_feedback(blocking=True, stale=True)):
+            result = mcp_server.gitea_mark_final_review_decision(
+                pr_number=6, action="request_changes", remote="prgs")
+        self.assertTrue(result["marked_ready"], result.get("reasons"))
+
+    def test_request_changes_allowed_when_no_blocker(self):
+        _seed()
+        with patch.object(mcp_server, "gitea_get_pr_review_feedback",
+                          return_value=_feedback(blocking=False)):
+            result = mcp_server.gitea_mark_final_review_decision(
+                pr_number=6, action="request_changes", remote="prgs")
+        self.assertTrue(result["marked_ready"], result.get("reasons"))
+
+    def test_request_changes_fails_closed_when_feedback_unavailable(self):
+        _seed()
+        with patch.object(mcp_server, "gitea_get_pr_review_feedback",
+                          return_value=_feedback(blocking=False,
+                                                 success=False)):
+            result = mcp_server.gitea_mark_final_review_decision(
+                pr_number=6, action="request_changes", remote="prgs")
+        self.assertFalse(result["marked_ready"])
+        self.assertTrue(
+            any("could not verify" in r for r in result["reasons"]),
+            result["reasons"])
+
+    def test_approve_does_not_fetch_feedback(self):
+        _seed()
+        with patch.object(mcp_server, "gitea_get_pr_review_feedback",
+                          side_effect=AssertionError("must not be called")):
+            result = mcp_server.gitea_mark_final_review_decision(
+                pr_number=6, action="approve", remote="prgs")
+        self.assertTrue(result["marked_ready"], result.get("reasons"))
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    unittest.main()