fix(review): drop ceiling-skipped files from the walkthrough rows

[devops-thiago]

What type of PR is this?

• 🐛 Bug fix

Description

A file skipped at the token spend ceiling is never reviewed at all: the banner above the "Changed Files" table says it "was not reviewed because the review's token spend ceiling (REVIEW_MAX_TOKENS_PER_REVIEW) was reached", and the model-facing overview lists it as not reviewed. Yet its row still rendered in the walkthrough table, because the row filter in VerdictBuilder.build uses truncation.omittedFileNames() — which #509 defined as effective-omitted minus ceiling-skips (pulled out only so the disclosure names the ceiling). The one posted comment contradicted itself.

The row filter now drops the union of omitted and ceiling-skipped names, so every never-reviewed class loses its row, while clipped and response-cut files (partially reviewed — deliberate per #511) keep theirs.

Related Issues

Fixes #515

How Has This Been Tested?

• Unit tests

New test VerdictBuilderTest.ceilingSkippedFilesAreDroppedFromTheWalkthroughRowsLikeOtherNotReviewedFiles (red/green proven — see Logs). Full suite: 2567 tests, 0 failures.

Gates: spotless:apply → clean compile spotbugs:check spotless:check (BugInstance size 0) → clean test green. JaCoCo ∩ git diff -U0 5c04600...HEAD: zero uncovered lines/branches in changed main code.

Checklist

• My code follows the project's coding standards
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• I have updated the documentation accordingly
• My changes generate no new warnings or errors

Screenshots / Logs

Red run of the new test on unfixed code (5c04600):

[ERROR] VerdictBuilderTest.ceilingSkippedFilesAreDroppedFromTheWalkthroughRowsLikeOtherNotReviewedFiles:412
a ceiling-skipped (never reviewed) file must not keep its walkthrough row
==> expected: <[ChangedFile[path=reviewed.java, changeType=modified]]>
but was: <[ChangedFile[path=reviewed.java, changeType=modified], ChangedFile[path=skipped.java, changeType=modified]]>

Green with the fix applied.

Additional Notes

First of a three-PR stack (#515 → #516 → #518) on the rendering seams; the follow-ups build on this branch.

[github-actions]

Dependency Review

✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.

Scanned Files

None

[thrillhousebot]

🤖 ThrillhouseBot PR Summary

What this PR does

Fixes #515 by making VerdictBuilder's walkthrough row filter drop files skipped at the token spend ceiling in addition to files omitted by budget/planning, while keeping clipped and response-cut files that were partially reviewed. Adds a regression test proving a ceiling-skipped file no longer renders a Changed Files walkthrough row.

Changes Overview

• Files changed: 2
• Lines added: +32
• Lines removed: -1

Changed Files

File	Change	Summary
src/main/java/dev/thiagogonzaga/thrillhousebot/review/VerdictBuilder.java	Modified	Merges truncation.spendCeilingSkippedFileNames() into the omitted-name set so ceiling-skipped files lose their walkthrough rows.
src/test/java/dev/thiagogonzaga/thrillhousebot/review/VerdictBuilderTest.java	Modified	Adds a test asserting that a ceiling-skipped file is dropped from the generated walkthrough rows.

Risk Assessment

Risk	Count
🔴 Critical	0
🟠 High	0
🟡 Medium	0
🔵 Low	0

No new issues found in this PR, but the review cannot be approved until CI is confirmed green.

⚠️ CI Checks Status

Some checks are still pending or have failed:

Check	Type	Status	Detail
trivy	check-run	⏳ Pending	-
changes	check-run	⏳ Pending	-
frontend	check-run	⏳ Pending	-
actionlint	check-run	⏳ Pending	-
format	check-run	⏳ Pending	-
test	check-run	⏳ Pending	-
dependency-review	check-run	⏳ Pending	-

---

Automated review by ThrillhouseBot. Reply with /review to re-run.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
100.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud