fix(ci): handle bracketed verdict format in AI output parsing

[rjmurillo-bot]

Pull Request

Summary

Fixes verdict parsing failure when AI models output VERDICT: [PASS] with brackets instead of VERDICT: PASS without brackets.

Specification References

Type	Reference	Description
Issue	Closes #575	Verdict parsing fails when AI outputs VERDICT: [PASS] with brackets

Changes

• Update verdict parsing regex to handle optional brackets: \[\?\([A-Z_]*\)\]\?
• Add clarifying notes to spec prompt templates about expected output format
• Both fixes provide defense-in-depth: regex handles existing AI behavior, prompts guide future outputs

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change fixing an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change adding functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature causing existing functionality to change)
• Documentation update
• Infrastructure/CI change
• Refactoring (no functional changes)

Testing

• Manual testing completed (regex tested with both bracketed and non-bracketed inputs)
• Tests added/updated
• No testing required (documentation only)

Agent Review

Security Review

• No security-critical changes in this PR

Other Agent Reviews

• Analyst reviewed complexity
• Architect reviewed design
• QA verified implementation

Checklist

• Code follows project style guidelines
• Self-review completed
• Changes are atomic and focused
• Commit messages follow conventional commits

Related Issues

• feat(copilot-detection): implement actual file comparison in Compare-DiffContent #543 - PR failing due to TRACE_VERDICT: NEEDS_REVIEW despite PASS in findings
• fix(skill): escape variable in Set-IssueLabels.ps1 string #552 - Similar failure pattern

---

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[github-actions]

PR Validation Report

Note

✅ Status: PASS

Description Validation

Check	Status
Description matches diff	PASS

QA Validation

Check	Status
Code changes detected	True
QA report exists	false

⚡ Warnings

• QA report not found for code changes (recommended before merge)

---

_{Powered by PR Validation workflow}

[github-actions]

AI Quality Gate Review

Tip

✅ Final Verdict: PASS

Walkthrough

This PR was reviewed by six AI agents in parallel, analyzing different aspects of the changes:

• Security Agent: Scans for vulnerabilities, secrets exposure, and security anti-patterns
• QA Agent: Evaluates test coverage, error handling, and code quality
• Analyst Agent: Assesses code quality, impact analysis, and maintainability
• Architect Agent: Reviews design patterns, system boundaries, and architectural concerns
• DevOps Agent: Evaluates CI/CD, build pipelines, and infrastructure changes
• Roadmap Agent: Assesses strategic alignment, feature scope, and user value

Review Summary

Agent	Verdict	Category	Status
Security	PASS	N/A	✅
QA	PASS	N/A	✅
Analyst	PASS	N/A	✅
Architect	PASS	N/A	✅
DevOps	PASS	N/A	✅
Roadmap	PASS	N/A	✅

💡 Quick Access: Click on individual agent jobs (e.g., "🔒 security Review", "🧪 qa Review") in the workflow run to see detailed findings and step summaries.

DevOps Review Details

Let me verify the regex change works correctly.

Pipeline Impact Assessment

Area	Impact	Notes
Build	None	No build configuration changes
Test	None	No test configuration changes
Deploy	None	No deployment changes
Cost	None	No runner or execution time changes

CI/CD Quality Checks

Check	Status	Location
YAML syntax valid	✅	.github/actions/ai-review/action.yml
Actions pinned	✅	No action version changes
Secrets secure	✅	No secret handling changes
Permissions minimal	✅	No permission changes
Shell scripts robust	✅	.github/actions/ai-review/action.yml:706

Findings

Severity	Category	Finding	Location	Fix
Low	Documentation	Prompt examples show VERDICT: PASS but templates previously showed VERDICT: [PASS|PARTIAL|FAIL] syntax	.github/prompts/*.md	Fixed in this PR

Regex Analysis

The regex change from:

s/.*VERDICT:[[:space:]]*\([A-Z_]*\).*/\1/p

to:

s/.*VERDICT:[[:space:]]*\[\?\([A-Z_]*\)\]\?.*/\1/p

Is correct:

• \[\? - matches optional opening bracket
• \]\? - matches optional closing bracket
• Captures the verdict token without brackets in group \1
• Handles both VERDICT: PASS and VERDICT: [PASS] formats

Template Assessment

• PR Template: Adequate
• Issue Templates: N/A (not modified)
• Template Issues: None

Automation Opportunities

Opportunity	Type	Benefit	Effort
None identified	-	-	-

Recommendations

1. The regex fix provides backward compatibility while handling the bracketed format edge case.
2. The prompt template updates provide defense-in-depth by guiding AI output format.

Verdict

VERDICT: PASS
MESSAGE: Regex correctly handles both bracketed and non-bracketed verdict formats. Prompt updates provide clear format guidance. Changes are minimal and targeted.

Roadmap Review Details

Strategic Alignment Assessment

Criterion	Rating	Notes
Aligns with project goals	High	Fixes CI reliability, directly supports agent review workflow
Priority appropriate	High	Bug fix for active CI failure; blocks PR workflow
User value clear	High	Unblocks automated PR reviews that were failing
Investment justified	High	Minimal 3-line change with high reliability improvement

Feature Completeness

• Scope Assessment: Right-sized
• Ship Ready: Yes
• MVP Complete: Yes
• Enhancement Opportunities: None identified

Impact Analysis

Dimension	Assessment	Notes
User Value	High	Fixes blocking CI failures on PR reviews
Business Impact	Medium	Prevents manual intervention for verdict parsing errors
Technical Leverage	Medium	Defense-in-depth approach (regex fix + prompt clarification)
Competitive Position	Neutral	Bug fix, not differentiation

Concerns

Priority	Concern	Recommendation
Low	Prompt format examples use literal VERDICT: PASS instead of template placeholder	Acceptable; explicit format is clearer than placeholders

Recommendations

1. Merge promptly to restore CI reliability for PR reviews
2. Consider adding unit test coverage for verdict parsing regex in future maintenance

Verdict

VERDICT: PASS
MESSAGE: Surgical bug fix addressing active CI failure (#575). Minimal scope, defense-in-depth approach, directly supports automated review workflow.

Analyst Review Details

Let me view more context around the regex pattern and check for similar patterns in the codebase:

Let me search for other prompt files that might have verdict patterns:

Now I have enough context to provide my analysis. The PR addresses issue #575 with a defense-in-depth approach.

---

Analysis: PR #576 - Verdict Parsing Fix

Code Quality Score

Criterion	Score (1-5)	Notes
Readability	5	Regex change is minimal and well-commented
Maintainability	5	Comment explains the fix purpose clearly
Consistency	4	Prompt template changes use example format rather than placeholder format
Simplicity	5	Minimal change to solve the problem

Overall: 4.75/5

Impact Assessment

• Scope: Isolated - affects only verdict parsing in CI
• Risk Level: Low - regex change is additive, backward compatible
• Affected Components: .github/actions/ai-review/action.yml, 2 spec prompt templates

Findings

Priority	Category	Finding	Location
Low	Consistency	Prompt templates now show example VERDICT: PASS in code block rather than placeholder [PASS|PARTIAL|FAIL] - this inconsistency with other prompts (e.g., default-ai-review.md line 12, pr-quality-gate-analyst.md line 81) may cause confusion	.github/prompts/spec-check-completeness.md:60
Low	Documentation	Other prompt templates (default-ai-review.md, pr-quality-gate-analyst.md) still use `[PASS	WARN

Recommendations

1. Consider updating all prompt templates consistently - either all use example format (VERDICT: PASS) or all add the "no brackets" clarification note.

2. The regex fix \[\?\([A-Z_]*\)\]\? correctly handles:

   • VERDICT: PASS (no brackets)
   • VERDICT: [PASS] (with brackets)
   • Backward compatible with existing behavior

3. The defense-in-depth approach (regex fix + prompt guidance) is appropriate.

Verdict

VERDICT: PASS
MESSAGE: Minimal, well-documented fix that correctly addresses the parsing issue with backward compatibility. Minor prompt template inconsistency is cosmetic and does not affect functionality.

Architect Review Details

Design Quality Assessment

Aspect	Rating (1-5)	Notes
Pattern Adherence	4	Defense-in-depth approach (regex + prompt guidance) follows good practices
Boundary Respect	5	Changes stay within CI/parsing layer, no boundary violations
Coupling	5	No new dependencies, isolated change
Cohesion	5	Single responsibility: fix verdict parsing
Extensibility	4	Regex pattern handles variations without breaking existing cases

Overall Design Score: 4.6/5

Architectural Concerns

Severity	Concern	Location	Recommendation
Low	Regex complexity increasing	action.yml:706	Consider extracting parsing logic to separate script if more patterns emerge

Breaking Change Assessment

• Breaking Changes: No
• Impact Scope: None
• Migration Required: No
• Migration Path: N/A

Technical Debt Analysis

• Debt Added: Low (slight regex complexity increase)
• Debt Reduced: Medium (fixes recurring CI failures from feat(copilot-detection): implement actual file comparison in Compare-DiffContent #543, fix(skill): escape variable in Set-IssueLabels.ps1 string #552, bug: Verdict parsing fails when AI outputs VERDICT: [PASS] with brackets #575)
• Net Impact: Improved

ADR Assessment

• ADR Required: No
• Decisions Identified: None (bug fix, not architectural decision)
• Existing ADR: None applicable
• Recommendation: N/A

Recommendations

1. Monitor for additional verdict format variations; if patterns grow, consider a structured parsing approach with explicit format validation

Verdict

VERDICT: PASS
MESSAGE: Surgical fix with defense-in-depth strategy. Regex handles existing AI behavior, prompt updates guide future outputs. No architectural concerns.

Security Review Details

Security Review: PR #575 Fix

PR Type Classification

File	Category	Security Scrutiny
.github/actions/ai-review/action.yml	WORKFLOW	Injection, secrets, permissions
.github/prompts/spec-check-completeness.md	PROMPT	Prompt injection surface
.github/prompts/spec-trace-requirements.md	PROMPT	Prompt injection surface

Findings

Severity	Category	Finding	Location	CWE
None	-	No security issues identified	-	-

Analysis

WORKFLOW Change (action.yml:706)

• Regex change: \[\?\([A-Z_]*\)\]\? adds optional bracket handling
• The regex is applied to AI output from a file, not untrusted user input
• Pattern only captures uppercase letters and underscores [A-Z_]*
• No expansion of attack surface; parsing remains strict
• Verdict validation via case statement unchanged

PROMPT Changes (spec-check-completeness.md, spec-trace-requirements.md)

• Added clarifying instructions for output format
• No new data flows or injection vectors introduced
• Changes reduce ambiguity in AI output format

Recommendations

None required.

Verdict

VERDICT: PASS
MESSAGE: Regex modification handles optional brackets safely. Pattern restricts to uppercase letters and underscores only. No secrets, injection vectors, or permission escalations introduced.

QA Review Details

Now let me verify the regex change works correctly by testing it:

I'll complete the QA review based on the code analysis.

---

VERDICT: PASS
MESSAGE: Bug fix correctly handles both bracketed and non-bracketed verdict formats with defense-in-depth approach.

PR TYPE: MIXED (WORKFLOW + DOCS)
FILES:
- WORKFLOW: .github/actions/ai-review/action.yml (1 line regex change)
- DOCS: .github/prompts/spec-check-completeness.md, .github/prompts/spec-trace-requirements.md (prompt clarifications)

Test Coverage Assessment

Area	Status	Evidence	Files Checked
Unit tests	N/A - regex in shell	No test file exists for action.yml parsing	action.yml:706
Edge cases	Covered by regex	\[\? and \]\? handle optional brackets	action.yml:706
Error handling	Adequate	Existing case statement validates tokens (lines 709-720)	action.yml:709-720
Assertions	N/A	Shell workflow, no assertion framework	-

Quality Concerns

Severity	Issue	Location	Evidence	Required Fix
LOW	No automated tests for regex	action.yml:706	Manual testing only per PR description	Consider adding CI test for verdict parsing

Regression Risk Assessment

• Risk Level: Low
• Affected Components: .github/actions/ai-review/action.yml (verdict parsing only)
• Breaking Changes: None - regex change is additive (still matches non-bracketed format)
• Required Testing: Verify both VERDICT: PASS and VERDICT: [PASS] parse correctly

Evidence Summary

• Regex change is correct: \[\? makes [ optional, \]\? makes ] optional
• Backward compatible: Non-bracketed format still matches
• Defense-in-depth: Prompt updates guide AI to avoid brackets; regex handles if they appear
• Existing validation preserved: Case statement still validates against known tokens
• Docs changes are clarifying notes: Add explicit format guidance to prompts

Verdict Rationale

1. WORKFLOW change is minimal: Single regex modification with clear purpose
2. DOCS changes are non-breaking: Clarifying notes added, no functionality changed
3. Error handling exists: Invalid verdicts still route to NEEDS_REVIEW fallback
4. No new executable code paths introduced: Fix is purely parsing adjustment

---

Run Details

Property	Value
Run ID	20608756372
Triggered by	pull_request on 579/merge
Commit	f19f2803eea0398049463b3faabe0063d9f550ef

_{Powered by AI Quality Gate workflow}

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces a robust fix for parsing AI-generated verdicts by handling an alternative bracketed format. The changes to the prompt files are a great addition to guide future AI outputs. The suggestion to improve the regular expression in the ai-review action to make it even more resilient against malformed inputs has been kept, ensuring the CI process remains stable and accurate.

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

Failed to post review comments

Note

Other AI code review bot(s) detected

CodeRabbit has detected other AI code review bot(s) in this pull request and will avoid duplicating their findings in the review comments. This may lead to a less comprehensive review.

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Updated AI-review action parsing to accept optional brackets around the VERDICT token and clarified prompt templates to require exact VERDICT formatting (use VERDICT: PASS, no brackets).

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Verdict parsing regex fix .github/actions/ai-review/action.yml	Changed sed regex to accept optional surrounding brackets when extracting VERDICT (handles VERDICT: [PASS] and VERDICT: PASS).
Prompt template clarifications .github/prompts/spec-check-completeness.md, .github/prompts/spec-trace-requirements.md	Replaced ambiguous bracketed placeholder with concrete VERDICT: PASS example and added explicit instruction to output the exact verdict token without brackets.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Suggested labels

area-infrastructure

Suggested reviewers

• rjmurillo

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	Title follows conventional commit format with type (fix), scope (ci), and clear subject about bracketed verdict parsing.
Description check	✅ Passed	Description clearly explains the verdict parsing bug, references issue #575, outlines regex and prompt changes, and includes testing notes.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Changes fully address #575 requirements: regex updated to handle optional brackets [action.yml], prompt templates clarified with explicit VERDICT output guidance [spec-trace-requirements.md, spec-check-completeness.md].
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes directly target issue #575: regex fix handles bracketed verdicts, prompt updates remove bracket notation confusion. No unrelated modifications detected.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/575-verdict-bracket-parsing

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[rjmurillo]

Review Triage Required

Note

Priority: NORMAL - Human approval required before bot responds

Review Summary

Source	Reviews	Comments
Human	0	0
Bot	3	2

Next Steps

1. Review human feedback above
2. Address any CHANGES_REQUESTED from human reviewers
3. Add triage:approved label when ready for bot to respond to review comments

---

_{Powered by PR Maintenance workflow - Add triage:approved label}