fix: close what an independent review found in the trial 2 fixes

- The pre-compact hook read only a checkpoint that started with `git commit`,
  so every plan in the new `git add … && git commit` form rebuilt nothing, and
  an empty match also skipped the session-state refresh. It now finds the
  commit anywhere in the span and always refreshes; first test for the hook.
- A sub-bullet that carries its own command stays a criterion (folding it
  left the command unrun); the shallowest bullet sets the base indent.
- Only a MINOR/SUGGESTION /code-review finding outside the range is released
  from forbidding ALLOW: a MAJOR one may be a break cited at an unchanged
  caller.
- `reuse` is an improvement category; the session-spec template stages too;
  a negated bash 3.2 constraint, an env prefix and `bash -c` are handled.
- Stale comment, Declined-to-Judge wording and rule-key counts brought in line.

Tests fail on 7c11c2a first (9 of 24).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

agents/review-coordinator.md

@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ You will receive a prompt containing:
   review: `claude-code-review` (`/code-review`) and `claude-security-review`
   (`/security-review`, not in `quick`). Engine findings carry the catalogue
   keys `CODE_REVIEW_DEFECT` / `CODE_REVIEW_IMPROVEMENT` (MINOR: simplification,
-  efficiency, style, readability) / `SECURITY_REVIEW_VULNERABILITY` (or a
+  efficiency, reuse, style, readability) / `SECURITY_REVIEW_VULNERABILITY` (or a
   narrower key) and are treated exactly like any reviewer's findings.
 - **Expected reviewers** — the names that were due, engines included, and
   each engine recorded as not run with its reason. A name that did not report
@@ -58,9 +58,10 @@ You will receive a prompt containing:
 - **Engine findings outside the review scope** — the `out_of_scope` list from
   `lib/review/engine-findings.mjs`. List each one under `## Declined to Judge`
   (`engine:out-of-scope`): a real claim on a file this review did not cover.
-  One from `/security-review` is `unverified` and forbids `ALLOW` (its base is
-  wider than this review). One from `/code-review` does not: it was given
-  exactly this range, so it does not hold `ALLOW` back.
+  It is `unverified` and forbids `ALLOW` — except a MINOR or SUGGESTION from
+  `/code-review` (given exactly this range): that one is declined but does not
+  hold `ALLOW` back. A MAJOR one still does: a change that breaks an
+  unchanged caller is cited at the caller.
 - **Triage map** — `{file → deep-review|summary-only|skip, reason}` from
   the /trekreview triage gate.
 - **Brief metadata** — `task`, `slug`, `project_dir`, `brief_path` from
@@ -278,8 +279,8 @@ the parser reads; a bare `findings:` is null and fails validation.
    `[unverified]`. Unverified lines come first: they are the ones that
    withheld `ALLOW`.
 9. `## Declined to Judge` — REQUIRED. One line per finding you set aside
-   without ruling on it (every `[unverified]` one: `file:line rule_key —
-   reason`), then one line `Trimmed: N` (MINOR/SUGGESTION text cut, findings
+   without ruling on it (every `[unverified]` one, and every
+   out-of-scope engine finding: `file:line rule_key — reason`), then one line `Trimmed: N` (MINOR/SUGGESTION text cut, findings
    kept). Write `None.` plus `Trimmed: 0` when empty. Borrowed: "Declined to
    judge … nothing you set aside is dropped silently" (Superpowers
    `skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md:43-48`, MIT).