fix(review): bridge label-separator punctuation in test-evidence negation checks

src/signals/test-evidence.ts

@@ -28,16 +28,27 @@ export function hasLocalTestEvidence(input: { tests?: string[] | undefined; test
 // negation by PROXIMITY: a negation word within a few words of a test/validation stem, in either order,
 // with a shared stem definition so the "is this a test/validation mention at all" question is answered
 // exactly once. The filler between the negation word and the stem may not cross a clause/sentence boundary
-// (a comma/period/exclamation/question mark/semicolon), so an unrelated "not" earlier in the body (e.g.
+// (a comma, period, exclamation mark, or question mark), so an unrelated "not" earlier in the body (e.g.
 // "This is not a breaking change. Tested with npm run test:ci.") cannot suppress a later, unrelated
-// affirmative note.
+// affirmative note. A colon, semicolon, or dash is deliberately NOT a hard boundary here -- see
+// LABEL_SEPARATOR_GAP below.
 const TEST_STEM = "(?:test(?:ed|s|ing)?|validat(?:ion|ed)|verif(?:y|ied|ying)|manual check|smoke(?:\\s+tests?)?)";
 const NEGATION_WORD = "(?:no|not|never|without|skip(?:ped)?|didn't|doesn't|isn't|wasn't|weren't|haven't|hasn't)";
 const NEGATION_CONTINUATION = "(?:not|never|failed|failing|skipped|incomplete)";
 const SAME_SENTENCE_FILLER_WORD = "[^\\s.,!?;]+";
+// A label-style status line often glues its separator directly onto the negation word or stem with no
+// surrounding whitespace ("Tests: not run.", "Validation; skipped.", "Tests - not run."). The plain
+// `\s+` gap below would never match across that punctuation, so the negation went undetected and the
+// bare "Tests"/"Validation" keyword fell through to the affirmative check instead (#3304, round 4).
+// Allow ONE label separator (colon, semicolon, or a hyphen/en-dash/em-dash) with any trailing
+// whitespace to stand in for the mandatory whitespace, but only at the junction touching the negation
+// word or stem itself -- every other gap between filler words stays pure whitespace, so a label
+// separator elsewhere in the sentence still cannot let a negation reach across unrelated content (the
+// filler-word bound below already exists for exactly this reason).
+const LABEL_SEPARATOR_GAP = "(?:\\s+|[:;\\-\\u2013\\u2014]\\s*)";
 
-const NEGATES_BEFORE_TEST_STEM = new RegExp(`\\b${NEGATION_WORD}\\b(?:\\s+${SAME_SENTENCE_FILLER_WORD}){0,3}\\s+${TEST_STEM}\\b`, "i");
-const NEGATES_AFTER_TEST_STEM = new RegExp(`\\b${TEST_STEM}\\b(?:\\s+${SAME_SENTENCE_FILLER_WORD}){0,2}\\s+${NEGATION_CONTINUATION}\\b`, "i");
+const NEGATES_BEFORE_TEST_STEM = new RegExp(`\\b${NEGATION_WORD}\\b${LABEL_SEPARATOR_GAP}(?:${SAME_SENTENCE_FILLER_WORD}\\s+){0,3}${TEST_STEM}\\b`, "i");
+const NEGATES_AFTER_TEST_STEM = new RegExp(`\\b${TEST_STEM}\\b${LABEL_SEPARATOR_GAP}(?:${SAME_SENTENCE_FILLER_WORD}\\s+){0,2}${NEGATION_CONTINUATION}\\b`, "i");
 // A compound negated adjective with no separating whitespace at all ("untested", "unvalidated", "unverified").
 const NEGATES_TEST_STEM_PREFIX = /\bun(?:tested|validated|verified)\b/i;
 
@@ -47,11 +58,15 @@ const AFFIRMATIVE_TEST_MENTION = /\b(test(?:ed|s|ing)?|validation|validated|veri
 // with real affirmative evidence ("Validated with npm run test:ci.") -- evaluating the negation checks
 // against the WHOLE body would let the first clause veto the second, discarding real evidence the manifest
 // gate is specifically trying to detect (#3304, round 3). Split on the same clause-boundary punctuation the
-// proximity checks already treat as a hard stop, and require at least one clause to be an affirmative,
-// non-negated mention -- so an earlier honest "no tests" disclosure can no longer suppress later evidence.
+// proximity checks already treat as a hard stop -- colon/semicolon/dash are excluded here on purpose
+// (#3304, round 4): they are typically a label separator glued directly onto the word on either side
+// ("Tests: not run."), and splitting on them would sever the stem from its own negation before the
+// proximity checks ever run, the same way the round-3 bug worked one level up. Require at least one
+// clause to be an affirmative, non-negated mention -- so an earlier honest "no tests" disclosure can no
+// longer suppress later evidence.
 export function hasValidationNote(value: string): boolean {
   return value
-    .split(/[.,!?;]+/)
+    .split(/[.,!?]+/)
     .some(
       (clause) =>
         !NEGATES_TEST_STEM_PREFIX.test(clause) &&

test/unit/test-evidence.test.ts

@@ -131,6 +131,38 @@ describe("test evidence helpers", () => {
   it("still rejects a body whose only test/validation mentions are all negated across clauses", () => {
     expect(hasValidationNote("No tests run. Not validated. Untested change.")).toBe(false);
   });
+
+  // REGRESSION (#3304, round 4): a label-style status line glues its separator directly onto the stem
+  // or negation word with no surrounding whitespace ("Tests: not run."). The proximity checks previously
+  // required a literal space next to the stem/negation word, so the colon/semicolon/dash broke that
+  // adjacency, the negation went undetected, and the bare "Tests"/"Validation" keyword fell through to
+  // the affirmative check instead.
+  it("detects a negation glued to the stem or negation word by a colon, semicolon, or dash", () => {
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Tests: not run.")).toBe(false);
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Validation: not run.")).toBe(false);
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Tests: not run")).toBe(false);
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Validation: Not Run.")).toBe(false);
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Test: skipped.")).toBe(false);
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Tests:not run.")).toBe(false);
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Tests - not run.")).toBe(false);
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Tests — not run.")).toBe(false); // em dash
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Tests – not run.")).toBe(false); // en dash
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Tests; not run.")).toBe(false);
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Validation; not run.")).toBe(false);
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Skipped: tests were not run.")).toBe(false); // negation word as the label
+  });
+
+  // REGRESSION (#3304, round 4): the label-separator gap must stay bounded to the junction touching the
+  // stem/negation word -- it must not let a colon/semicolon/dash elsewhere in a longer sentence bridge a
+  // negation across unrelated filler words, and a genuine colon/semicolon-glued negated clause still
+  // must not suppress a separate, later real affirmative clause.
+  it("does not let a label separator elsewhere in the sentence bridge an unrelated negation", () => {
+    expect(hasValidationNote("No documentation issues; tests pass regardless.")).toBe(true);
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Not sure if this fully works; tests pass regardless.")).toBe(true);
+    expect(hasValidationNote("No changes needed here; validated with npm test.")).toBe(true);
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Tests: not run. Validated with npm run test:ci.")).toBe(true);
+    expect(hasValidationNote("Tests; not run. Validated with npm run test:ci.")).toBe(true);
+  });
 });
 
 describe("classifyTestCoverage", () => {