analyze_repo.sh was shfmt-clean at 133fccf and my split made it dirty
(a double blank line). Fixed with shfmt -w, then restored the STEP 1
comment banner shfmt -w also stripped -- all eight banners re-counted.
The three new shell_check libs inherited their parent's 2-space
indentation; as new files they have no prior style to preserve, so they
are now tabs like shfmt wants.
Context for the exit code: 157 of 298 linux_configuration shell files
already fail shfmt at 133fccf. shfmt is not in .pre-commit-config.yaml
and there is no .editorconfig, so run_linters exiting 1 on the full tree
is the repo's standing state, not a regression here. Scoped this commit
to what these splits touched rather than reformatting 157 files.
Also closes the risk left open in a84556a: run_linters now verified
directly over the three new libs -- all six passes PASS, exit 0 -- with
install_linters never invoked, so decision 6 holds. That is the path
.github/workflows/shell-check.yml runs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011w2Pj4Ek3ZNMQVYcFHgXDY
428 lines -> 121, with lib/shell_check_lint.sh (171),
lib/shell_check_install.sh (86) and lib/shell_check_discover.sh (78).
The temp-file paths (TMPDIR, ABS_FILES_Z, REL_FILES_Z) are set once in
the entry before any lib is sourced and only read afterwards, so nothing
mutable crosses a seam. shellcheck was clean on the first attempt.
Runtime check is --skip-install --list-only --verbose, diffed against the
same run from a detached worktree at HEAD: 318 files before, 321 now,
the delta being exactly the three new libs the discovery walk now sees.
Nothing removed.
Not verified: the linting path itself. --skip-install does not gate the
AUR branch of install_linters, so a full run cannot be done under
decision 6 -- I learned that by running it, which installed four AUR
build deps before I killed it. The user chose to leave them. run_linters
moved as one intact block with no interior edit and the line-set diff
shows zero lines lost, so the seam risk is confined to its two braces.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011w2Pj4Ek3ZNMQVYcFHgXDY
