feat(review-workflow): raise A-bar with capability, sweep, live-state, and role-boundary proofs (#179)

Extends review_proofs.py with the four #179 proofs, the successor set to the #173 checkout/inventory proofs: - assess_capability_evidence: a capability claim (review_pr, merge_pr, ...) counts only with exact evidence citing gitea_resolve_task_capability output or equivalent runtime context; no claims at all fails closed. - assess_sweep_evidence: secret/provenance sweeps must state the exact command/script/pattern/named method, the scope scanned, and a boolean result; vague summaries are downgraded and a missing sweep fails closed. - assess_live_state_recheck: an explicit pre-mutation recheck must prove the PR is still open, the live head equals the pinned head (full 40-hex), the base branch is unchanged, and blocking review state was checked and absent; not performing it fails closed. - assess_role_boundary: a reviewer run using an author namespace (or vice versa) is clean only with an explicit justification; unreported namespace usage fails closed. build_final_report now takes the four proofs as keyword arguments: any missing or failed proof downgrades the grade, merge_allowed additionally requires the proven live-state recheck, and a merge performed without it is a blocked violation. Existing #173 semantics are unchanged otherwise; gates only get stricter. tests/test_review_proofs.py adds 29 tests covering the issue's harness assertions: capability claims without evidence downgraded, vague sweeps downgraded, missing/stale live-state recheck downgrades and blocks merge (violation when a merge is claimed anyway), unjustified author-namespace use downgraded, and the #173 positive baseline preserved. SKILL.md sections F/G and the review-pr/merge-pr templates now require the capability evidence, exact sweep, pre-verdict and pre-merge live-state rechecks, and reviewer-namespace discipline. Closes #179 Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <[email protected]>
2026-07-05 16:42:03 -04:00
parent c6fd0fd963
commit e2247fab85
5 changed files with 553 additions and 26 deletions
@@ -330,22 +330,167 @@ def assess_self_review_contamination(reviewer_identity, pr_author,
    }


-def assess_role_boundary(proof):
+def assess_capability_evidence(capability_claims):
+    """#179 gap 1: a capability claim needs exact evidence, not assertion.
+
+    *capability_claims* is a list of ``{'task', 'allowed',
+    'evidence_source'}`` dicts, one per capability the report claims (e.g.
+    review_pr, merge_pr). Each claim must name its task, be allowed, and
+    cite an exact evidence source (``gitea_resolve_task_capability`` output
+    or equivalent runtime-context evidence). No claims at all fails closed.
+    """
+    reasons = []
+    claims = capability_claims or []
+    if not claims:
+        reasons.append(
+            "no capability evidence provided; capability checks may not be "
+            "claimed as passed"
+        )
+    for claim in claims:
+        task = (claim.get("task") or "").strip() or "<unnamed task>"
+        if claim.get("allowed") is not True:
+            reasons.append(
+                f"capability '{task}' is not proven allowed; fail closed"
+            )
+        if not (claim.get("evidence_source") or "").strip():
+            reasons.append(
+                f"capability '{task}' claimed without exact evidence "
+                "(cite gitea_resolve_task_capability output or equivalent)"
+            )
+    proven = not reasons
+    return {"proven": proven, "reasons": reasons, "claims": len(claims)}
+
+
+def assess_sweep_evidence(sweep):
+    """#179 gap 2: secret/provenance sweeps must state exact method + scope.
+
+    *sweep* keys: ``command`` (the exact command, script, grep pattern, or
+    named sweep method), ``scope`` (what was scanned, e.g. 'full PR diff
+    against prgs/master'), ``clean`` (bool result). A vague summary without
+    the exact method is downgraded; a missing sweep fails closed.
+    """
+    if not sweep:
+        return {
+            "verdict": "missing",
+            "proven": False,
+            "reasons": ["no secret/provenance sweep reported; fail closed"],
+        }
+    reasons = []
+    if not (sweep.get("command") or "").strip():
+        reasons.append(
+            "sweep method/command not stated exactly (command, script, "
+            "pattern, or named sweep method required)"
+        )
+    if not (sweep.get("scope") or "").strip():
+        reasons.append("sweep scope not stated (what diff/files were scanned)")
+    if not isinstance(sweep.get("clean"), bool):
+        reasons.append("sweep result not stated as clean/not-clean")
+    verdict = "exact" if not reasons else "vague"
+    return {
+        "verdict": verdict,
+        "proven": verdict == "exact",
+        "reasons": reasons,
+        "clean": sweep.get("clean") if isinstance(sweep.get("clean"), bool)
+        else None,
+    }
+
+
+def assess_live_state_recheck(recheck):
+    """#179 gap 3: explicit live-state recheck before review/merge mutation.
+
+    *recheck* keys: ``pr_state``, ``pinned_head_sha``, ``live_head_sha``,
+    ``pinned_base_ref``, ``live_base_ref``, ``blocking_change_requests``.
+    Proven only when the PR is still open, the live head equals the pinned
+    head (full 40-hex), the base branch is unchanged, and blocking review
+    state was checked and is absent. Not performing the recheck fails
+    closed and blocks mutation.
+    """
+    if not recheck:
+        return {
+            "proven": False,
+            "block": True,
+            "reasons": [
+                "final live-state recheck not performed before mutation; "
+                "fail closed"
+            ],
+        }
+    reasons = []
+    if (recheck.get("pr_state") or "").strip().lower() != "open":
+        reasons.append(
+            f"PR state is '{recheck.get('pr_state')}', not open; stop"
+        )
+
+    pinned = (recheck.get("pinned_head_sha") or "").strip().lower()
+    live = (recheck.get("live_head_sha") or "").strip().lower()
+    if not (_FULL_SHA.match(pinned) and _FULL_SHA.match(live)):
+        reasons.append(
+            "pinned/live head SHAs missing or not full 40-hex; fail closed"
+        )
+    elif pinned != live:
+        reasons.append(
+            "live head SHA no longer equals the pinned head; re-pin and "
+            "re-validate before mutation"
+        )
+
+    base_pinned = _normalize_ref(recheck.get("pinned_base_ref"))
+    base_live = _normalize_ref(recheck.get("live_base_ref"))
+    if not base_pinned or not base_live:
+        reasons.append("base refs missing from live-state recheck; fail closed")
+    elif base_pinned != base_live:
+        reasons.append(
+            f"base branch changed from '{base_pinned}' to '{base_live}'"
+        )
+
+    blocking = recheck.get("blocking_change_requests")
+    if blocking is None:
+        reasons.append(
+            "blocking review state not checked; fail closed"
+        )
+    elif blocking:
+        reasons.append(
+            "an undismissed REQUEST_CHANGES / blocking review state remains "
+            "unresolved"
+        )
+
+    proven = not reasons
+    return {"proven": proven, "block": not proven, "reasons": reasons}
+
+
+def assess_role_boundary(proof=None, *, task_role=None, namespaces_used=None,
+                         justification=None):
    """Assess reviewer/author role separation for blind queue workflows.

    Issue #175 blocks a reviewer queue task from silently becoming author
-    implementation work. The workflow may use both namespaces only when that
-    mixed use is explicit, justified, and non-mutating; author mutations after
-    a reviewer queue task require an explicit operator authorization.
+    implementation work. Issue #179 also requires reviewer workflows to
+    report namespace use and justify any foreign namespace calls. This helper
+    accepts both forms:

-    *proof* keys:
-    ``task_role`` ('reviewer' or 'author'), ``task_kind`` (for example
-    'blind_pr_queue_review'), ``reviewer_namespace_used``,
-    ``author_namespace_used``, ``author_mutations`` (list), ``review_mutations``
-    (list), ``operator_authorized_author_work``, ``mixed_namespace_justification``,
-    ``scratch_evidence_claimed``, and ``scratch_evidence_durable``.
+    - the #175 dict proof with mutation details, or
+    - the #179 keyword form: ``task_role``, ``namespaces_used``,
+      ``justification``.
    """
-    proof = proof or {}
+    if proof is None:
+        namespaces_reported = namespaces_used is not None
+        namespaces = list(namespaces_used or [])
+        proof = {
+            "task_role": task_role,
+            "reviewer_namespace_used": any(
+                "reviewer" in (namespace or "").lower()
+                for namespace in namespaces
+            ),
+            "author_namespace_used": any(
+                "author" in (namespace or "").lower()
+                for namespace in namespaces
+            ),
+            "mixed_namespace_justification": justification,
+            "author_mutations": [],
+            "review_mutations": [],
+            "_namespaces_used": namespaces,
+            "_namespaces_reported": namespaces_reported,
+        }
+    else:
+        proof = dict(proof or {})
+
    task_role = (proof.get("task_role") or "").strip().lower()
    task_kind = (proof.get("task_kind") or "").strip().lower()
    author_mutations = list(proof.get("author_mutations") or [])
@@ -364,6 +509,8 @@ def assess_role_boundary(proof):

    if task_role not in {"reviewer", "author"}:
        reasons.append("task role missing or unknown; role boundary unproven")
+    if proof.get("_namespaces_reported") is False:
+        reasons.append("namespaces used were not reported; fail closed")

    if task_role == "reviewer":
        if author_mutations and not authorized:
@@ -409,18 +556,35 @@ def assess_role_boundary(proof):
        status = "clean"
        safe_next_action = "proceed"

+    namespaces = proof.get("_namespaces_used")
+    if namespaces is None:
+        namespaces = []
+        if reviewer_used:
+            namespaces.append("gitea-reviewer")
+        if author_used:
+            namespaces.append("gitea-author")
+    foreign = [
+        namespace for namespace in namespaces
+        if task_role and task_role not in (namespace or "").lower()
+    ]
+
    return {
        "status": status,
        "clean": status == "clean",
+        "proven": status == "clean",
        "reasons": reasons,
        "violations": violations,
        "safe_next_action": safe_next_action,
+        "foreign_namespaces": foreign,
+        "justified": bool(mixed_justification),
    }


 def build_final_report(checkout_proof, inventory, validation, contamination,
                       identity_eligible, merge_performed,
-                       issue_status_verified, role_boundary=None):
+                       issue_status_verified,
+                       capability_evidence=None, sweep=None, live_state=None,
+                       role_boundary=None):
    """Required behavior 6 + acceptance criteria: one report, distinct proofs.

    Combines the individual proof verdicts into the final-report fields the
@@ -431,6 +595,13 @@ def build_final_report(checkout_proof, inventory, validation, contamination,
    - 'downgraded' — one or more proofs missing/weak; do not merge.
    - 'blocked'    — a *violation*: a merge was claimed although the proofs
      did not allow one.
+
+    #179 raises the A bar: the report must also carry exact capability
+    evidence (``assess_capability_evidence``), an exact secret/provenance
+    sweep (``assess_sweep_evidence``), a pre-mutation live-state recheck
+    (``assess_live_state_recheck`` — also required for ``merge_allowed``),
+    and a clean role boundary (``assess_role_boundary``). Omitting any of
+    them downgrades; a merge without the live recheck is a violation.
    """
    contamination_status = contamination.get("status", "unknown")
    checkout_proven = bool(checkout_proof.get("proven"))
@@ -443,6 +614,29 @@ def build_final_report(checkout_proof, inventory, validation, contamination,
    }
    role_status = role_boundary.get("status", "warning")

+    capability_evidence = capability_evidence or {
+        "proven": False,
+        "reasons": ["capability evidence not provided (#179)"],
+    }
+    sweep = sweep or {
+        "verdict": "missing",
+        "proven": False,
+        "reasons": ["secret/provenance sweep evidence not provided (#179)"],
+    }
+    live_state = live_state or {
+        "proven": False,
+        "block": True,
+        "reasons": ["pre-mutation live-state recheck not provided (#179)"],
+    }
+    role_boundary = role_boundary or {
+        "proven": False,
+        "reasons": ["role-boundary/namespace usage not reported (#179)"],
+    }
+    capability_proven = bool(capability_evidence.get("proven"))
+    sweep_proven = bool(sweep.get("proven"))
+    live_state_proven = bool(live_state.get("proven"))
+    role_boundary_clean = bool(role_boundary.get("proven"))
+
    downgrade_reasons = []
    if not identity_eligible:
        downgrade_reasons.append("identity/profile not eligible for review")
@@ -466,6 +660,23 @@ def build_final_report(checkout_proof, inventory, validation, contamination,
        downgrade_reasons.extend(role_boundary.get("reasons", []))
    if not issue_status_verified:
        downgrade_reasons.append("linked issue status not verified")
+    if not capability_proven:
+        downgrade_reasons.append("exact capability evidence missing (#179)")
+        downgrade_reasons.extend(capability_evidence.get("reasons", []))
+    if not sweep_proven:
+        downgrade_reasons.append(
+            f"secret/provenance sweep evidence is "
+            f"{sweep.get('verdict', 'missing')} (#179)"
+        )
+        downgrade_reasons.extend(sweep.get("reasons", []))
+    if not live_state_proven:
+        downgrade_reasons.append(
+            "pre-mutation live-state recheck missing or failed (#179)"
+        )
+        downgrade_reasons.extend(live_state.get("reasons", []))
+    if not role_boundary_clean:
+        downgrade_reasons.append("role/namespace boundary not clean (#179)")
+        downgrade_reasons.extend(role_boundary.get("reasons", []))

    merge_allowed = (
        identity_eligible
@@ -474,6 +685,8 @@ def build_final_report(checkout_proof, inventory, validation, contamination,
        and role_status == "clean"
        and validation_claimable
        and validation.get("verdict") != "invalid"
+        # #179: no merge without a proven final live-state recheck.
+        and live_state_proven
    )

    violations = []
@@ -508,6 +721,10 @@ def build_final_report(checkout_proof, inventory, validation, contamination,
        "merge_allowed": merge_allowed,
        "merge_performed": bool(merge_performed),
        "issue_status_verified": bool(issue_status_verified),
+        "capability_evidence_proven": capability_proven,
+        "sweep_verdict": sweep.get("verdict"),
+        "live_state_recheck_proven": live_state_proven,
+        "role_boundary_clean": role_boundary_clean,
    }


@@ -232,19 +232,35 @@ Worktree folder = branch with `/` replaced by `-`
   validation result after the command has completed and its output has
   been read (`review_proofs.assess_validation_report`).
 10. **Do not merge if checks fail. Do not merge if the reviewer is the author.**
-11. The final report must distinguish (`review_proofs.build_final_report`):
+11. **#179 A-bar proofs** (all fail closed when missing —
+    `review_proofs.assess_capability_evidence`, `assess_sweep_evidence`,
+    `assess_live_state_recheck`, `assess_role_boundary`):
+    - Capability claims must cite exact `gitea_resolve_task_capability`
+      output (or runtime context); a bare "capability checks passed" is
+      downgraded.
+    - The secret/provenance sweep must state the exact command/script/
+      pattern/named method and the scope scanned.
+    - Immediately before submitting a review verdict (and again before any
+      merge), re-read live PR state and prove: still open, live head ==
+      pinned head, base unchanged, no unresolved blocking review state.
+    - Reviewer runs stay in the reviewer namespace; any author-namespace
+      call requires an explicit justification in the report.
+12. The final report must distinguish (`review_proofs.build_final_report`):
    identity eligible; PR author different from reviewer; session
-    contamination absent (with evidence); role boundary clean; validation
-    performed on the pinned head; merge performed; issue status verified. If
-    any proof is missing, stop or downgrade the result instead of merging
-    confidently.
+    contamination absent (with evidence); validation performed on the pinned
+    head; capability evidence; sweep verdict; live-state recheck; role
+    boundary; merge performed; issue status verified. If any proof is
+    missing, stop or downgrade the result instead of merging confidently.

 ## G. Merge / cleanup workflow

 Only an eligible (non-author) reviewer merges. Before merging: always verify
-the authenticated identity **and** the PR author; respect runtime profile
-gates; run independent validation (do not trust the author's reported
-results); and merge with a **pinned head SHA** and, where supported, the
+the authenticated identity **and** the PR author; cite exact capability
+evidence for merge_pr (#179); respect runtime profile gates; run independent
+validation (do not trust the author's reported results); perform the **final
+live-state recheck** (#179 — PR still open, live head == pinned head, base
+unchanged, no unresolved blocking review state) immediately before the merge
+mutation; and merge with a **pinned head SHA** and, where supported, the
 **expected changed-file set**, so a moved head or widened diff refuses the
 merge. After a real merge:

@@ -20,10 +20,21 @@ Steps:
   *If the current identity does not match the required role (or is the PR author), STOP. Relaunch/switch to the correct profile first.*
 2. Verify authenticated identity + active profile.
 3. Confirm PR #<pr>: author (not you), state open, mergeable, review approved. Check if PR body uses `Closes #N` or `Fixes #N`; if it uses `Implements #N` or `Refs #N`, manual closing will be needed in step 29.
-4. If any gate fails → STOP and report.
-4. Merge with explicit confirmation (e.g. confirmation="MERGE PR <pr>"),
-   optionally pinning the reviewed head SHA / changed-file set.
-5. Confirm remote master now contains the merge commit (or the expected changes if squash merged).
+4. Capability evidence (#179): cite the exact gitea_resolve_task_capability
+   output (or runtime context) proving merge_pr is allowed — a bare
+   "capability checks passed" claim is downgraded.
+5. Final live-state recheck (#179), immediately before the merge mutation —
+   re-read the live PR and prove:
+   - PR still open
+   - live head SHA still equals the pinned/reviewed head SHA
+   - base branch unchanged
+   - no undismissed REQUEST_CHANGES / blocking review state remains
+   If any recheck fails → STOP, re-pin, re-validate.
+6. If any gate fails → STOP and report.
+7. Merge with explicit confirmation (e.g. confirmation="MERGE PR <pr>"),
+   pinning the reviewed head SHA (expected_head_sha) and, where supported,
+   the changed-file set.
+8. Confirm remote master now contains the merge commit (or the expected changes if squash merged).
   *Note: Gitea PR "closed" state is NOT equivalent to "merged". Do not assume a closed PR succeeded without verifying the actual landed changes.*

 Then run the cleanup template (worktree-cleanup.md):
@@ -36,6 +36,11 @@ Steps:
   - Target task role: reviewer identity (must NOT be the PR author)
   *If the current identity does not match the required role (or is the PR author), STOP. Relaunch/switch to the correct profile first.*
 2. Verify your authenticated identity (whoami) and the active profile.
+   Capability evidence (#179): cite the exact gitea_resolve_task_capability
+   output (or runtime context) for review_pr (and merge_pr if merging later);
+   a bare "capability checks passed" claim is downgraded. Stay in the
+   reviewer namespace: any author-namespace call must be justified in the
+   report (#179).
 3. Fetch the PR facts: PR author, head SHA, state (must be open), base branch.
   Pin the head SHA in your notes; every later step validates THAT SHA.
 4. If authenticated user == PR author → STOP (no self-review).
@@ -58,11 +63,22 @@ Steps:
   If HEAD does not match the pinned head → STOP before review/merge.
 7. Confirm the worktree is clean. Inspect the FULL diff; confirm scope matches
   issue #<n>; flag any unrelated files, secrets, or formatting churn. Check that the PR body correctly uses Gitea-closing keywords (`Closes #N` or `Fixes #N`) instead of non-closing ones (`Implements #N`, `Refs #N`).
+   Secret/provenance sweep must be exact (#179): state the exact command,
+   script, grep pattern, or named sweep method AND the scope scanned (e.g.
+   `git diff prgs/master...HEAD | grep -inE '<pattern>'`); "checked the diff
+   for secrets" alone is downgraded.
 8. Run the test suite; report the exact command and exact results — pass/fail
   plus passed/skipped/failed counts, any ignored paths and why they are safe
   to ignore, and whether the command differs from the repository's canonical
   validation command. Only claim a result after the output has been read.
-9. Post the review verdict: approve only if scope is clean and checks pass;
+9. Final live-state recheck (#179), immediately before submitting the review
+   verdict — re-read the live PR and prove:
+   - PR still open
+   - live head SHA still equals the pinned head SHA from step 3
+   - base branch unchanged
+   - no undismissed REQUEST_CHANGES / blocking review state left unaccounted
+   If anything moved → STOP, re-pin, re-validate before any verdict.
+10. Post the review verdict: approve only if scope is clean and checks pass;
    otherwise request changes with specifics. Never merge from this review step.
   Include a "Review Metadata" block (attribution only — docs/llm-agent-sha.md):

@@ -21,10 +21,13 @@ import unittest
 sys.path.insert(0, str(__import__("pathlib").Path(__file__).resolve().parent.parent))

 from review_proofs import (  # noqa: E402
+    assess_capability_evidence,
    assess_controller_handoff,
    assess_inventory_completeness,
+    assess_live_state_recheck,
    assess_role_boundary,
    assess_self_review_contamination,
+    assess_sweep_evidence,
    assess_validation_report,
    build_final_report,
    pr_inventory_trust_gate,
@@ -116,6 +119,63 @@ def _good_role_boundary():
    )


+def _good_capability_evidence():
+    return assess_capability_evidence([
+        {
+            "task": "review_pr",
+            "allowed": True,
+            "evidence_source": (
+                "gitea_resolve_task_capability(review_pr) output: "
+                "allowed_in_current_session=true, profile prgs-reviewer"
+            ),
+        },
+        {
+            "task": "merge_pr",
+            "allowed": True,
+            "evidence_source": (
+                "gitea_resolve_task_capability(merge_pr) output: "
+                "allowed_in_current_session=true, profile prgs-reviewer"
+            ),
+        },
+    ])
+
+
+def _good_sweep(**overrides):
+    sweep = {
+        "command": (
+            "git diff prgs/master...HEAD | grep -inE "
+            "'password|token|secret|api[_-]?key|authorization|bearer|https?://'"
+        ),
+        "scope": "full PR diff against prgs/master",
+        "clean": True,
+    }
+    sweep.update(overrides)
+    return assess_sweep_evidence(sweep)
+
+
+def _good_live_state(**overrides):
+    recheck = {
+        "pr_state": "open",
+        "pinned_head_sha": PINNED,
+        "live_head_sha": PINNED,
+        "pinned_base_ref": "master",
+        "live_base_ref": "master",
+        "blocking_change_requests": False,
+    }
+    recheck.update(overrides)
+    return assess_live_state_recheck(recheck)
+
+
+def _good_role_boundary_179(**overrides):
+    kwargs = {
+        "task_role": "reviewer",
+        "namespaces_used": ["gitea-reviewer"],
+        "justification": None,
+    }
+    kwargs.update(overrides)
+    return assess_role_boundary(**kwargs)
+
+
 class TestCheckoutProof(unittest.TestCase):
    """Required behavior 1 + 2: prove HEAD == pinned PR head or stop."""

@@ -466,6 +526,9 @@ class TestFinalReport(unittest.TestCase):
            "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(),
        }
        kwargs.update(overrides)
@@ -879,5 +942,209 @@ class TestPRInventoryTrustGate(unittest.TestCase):
        self.assertTrue(res["corroborated"])


+class TestCapabilityEvidence(unittest.TestCase):
+    """#179 gap 1: capability claims need exact evidence."""
+
+    def test_evidence_backed_claims_are_proven(self):
+        result = _good_capability_evidence()
+        self.assertTrue(result["proven"])
+        self.assertEqual(result["reasons"], [])
+
+    def test_claim_without_evidence_source_is_not_proven(self):
+        result = assess_capability_evidence([
+            {"task": "review_pr", "allowed": True, "evidence_source": ""},
+        ])
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(any("evidence" in r.lower() for r in result["reasons"]))
+
+    def test_no_claims_at_all_fails_closed(self):
+        result = assess_capability_evidence([])
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_disallowed_task_is_not_proven(self):
+        result = assess_capability_evidence([
+            {
+                "task": "merge_pr",
+                "allowed": False,
+                "evidence_source": "gitea_resolve_task_capability output",
+            },
+        ])
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+
+
+class TestSweepEvidence(unittest.TestCase):
+    """#179 gap 2: secret/provenance sweep must be exact."""
+
+    def test_exact_sweep_is_proven(self):
+        result = _good_sweep()
+        self.assertEqual(result["verdict"], "exact")
+        self.assertTrue(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_vague_sweep_without_command_is_downgraded(self):
+        result = _good_sweep(command="")
+        self.assertEqual(result["verdict"], "vague")
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_sweep_without_scope_is_downgraded(self):
+        result = _good_sweep(scope="")
+        self.assertEqual(result["verdict"], "vague")
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_missing_sweep_fails_closed(self):
+        result = assess_sweep_evidence(None)
+        self.assertEqual(result["verdict"], "missing")
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_unstated_result_is_downgraded(self):
+        result = _good_sweep(clean=None)
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+
+
+class TestLiveStateRecheck(unittest.TestCase):
+    """#179 gap 3: explicit pre-mutation live-state recheck."""
+
+    def test_clean_recheck_is_proven(self):
+        result = _good_live_state()
+        self.assertTrue(result["proven"])
+        self.assertFalse(result["block"])
+
+    def test_missing_recheck_fails_closed(self):
+        result = assess_live_state_recheck(None)
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(result["block"])
+
+    def test_closed_pr_blocks(self):
+        result = _good_live_state(pr_state="closed")
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(result["block"])
+
+    def test_moved_head_blocks(self):
+        result = _good_live_state(live_head_sha=OTHER)
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(any("head" in r.lower() for r in result["reasons"]))
+
+    def test_changed_base_blocks(self):
+        result = _good_live_state(live_base_ref="develop")
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_unresolved_blocking_reviews_block(self):
+        result = _good_live_state(blocking_change_requests=True)
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_unchecked_blocking_state_fails_closed(self):
+        result = _good_live_state(blocking_change_requests=None)
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+
+
+class TestRoleBoundary179(unittest.TestCase):
+    """#179 gap 4: reviewer flows avoid unjustified author-namespace use."""
+
+    def test_native_namespace_only_is_clean(self):
+        result = _good_role_boundary_179()
+        self.assertTrue(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_foreign_namespace_without_justification_is_downgraded(self):
+        result = _good_role_boundary_179(
+            namespaces_used=["gitea-reviewer", "gitea-author"]
+        )
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(any("justif" in r.lower() for r in result["reasons"]))
+
+    def test_foreign_namespace_with_justification_is_clean(self):
+        result = _good_role_boundary_179(
+            namespaces_used=["gitea-reviewer", "gitea-author"],
+            justification=(
+                "author namespace read-only whoami used to evidence "
+                "self-review contamination status"
+            ),
+        )
+        self.assertTrue(result["proven"])
+
+    def test_unreported_namespaces_fail_closed(self):
+        result = _good_role_boundary_179(namespaces_used=None)
+        self.assertFalse(result["proven"])
+
+
+class TestFinalReport179Bar(unittest.TestCase):
+    """#179 acceptance adds capability, sweep, live-state, and role proofs."""
+
+    def _report(self, **overrides):
+        kwargs = {
+            "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(),
+        }
+        kwargs.update(overrides)
+        return build_final_report(**kwargs)
+
+    def test_all_179_proofs_present_is_grade_a(self):
+        report = self._report()
+        self.assertEqual(report["grade"], "A")
+        self.assertTrue(report["capability_evidence_proven"])
+        self.assertEqual(report["sweep_verdict"], "exact")
+        self.assertTrue(report["live_state_recheck_proven"])
+        self.assertTrue(report["role_boundary_clean"])
+
+    def test_missing_capability_evidence_downgrades(self):
+        report = self._report(capability_evidence=None)
+        self.assertNotEqual(report["grade"], "A")
+        self.assertFalse(report["capability_evidence_proven"])
+
+    def test_unevidenced_capability_claim_downgrades(self):
+        report = self._report(
+            capability_evidence=assess_capability_evidence([
+                {"task": "review_pr", "allowed": True, "evidence_source": ""},
+            ])
+        )
+        self.assertNotEqual(report["grade"], "A")
+
+    def test_vague_sweep_downgrades(self):
+        report = self._report(sweep=_good_sweep(command=""))
+        self.assertNotEqual(report["grade"], "A")
+        self.assertEqual(report["sweep_verdict"], "vague")
+
+    def test_missing_sweep_downgrades(self):
+        report = self._report(sweep=None)
+        self.assertNotEqual(report["grade"], "A")
+
+    def test_missing_live_state_recheck_downgrades_and_blocks_merge(self):
+        report = self._report(live_state=None)
+        self.assertNotEqual(report["grade"], "A")
+        self.assertFalse(report["merge_allowed"])
+        self.assertFalse(report["live_state_recheck_proven"])
+
+    def test_stale_live_state_blocks_merge(self):
+        report = self._report(live_state=_good_live_state(live_head_sha=OTHER))
+        self.assertNotEqual(report["grade"], "A")
+        self.assertFalse(report["merge_allowed"])
+
+    def test_merge_claim_without_live_recheck_is_a_violation(self):
+        report = self._report(live_state=None, merge_performed=True)
+        self.assertEqual(report["grade"], "blocked")
+        self.assertTrue(report["violations"])
+
+    def test_unjustified_author_namespace_downgrades(self):
+        report = self._report(
+            role_boundary=_good_role_boundary_179(
+                namespaces_used=["gitea-reviewer", "gitea-author"]
+            )
+        )
+        self.assertNotEqual(report["grade"], "A")
+        self.assertFalse(report["role_boundary_clean"])
+
+    def test_positive_baseline_from_173_still_holds(self):
+        report = self._report()
+        self.assertTrue(report["inventory_complete"])
+        self.assertTrue(report["validated_on_pinned_head"])
+
+
 if __name__ == "__main__":
    unittest.main()