Static patterns: \s+/\s* cross paragraph boundaries — 1,485 occurrences across all 15 pattern files (systemic #405)

[yashrajp22]

Summary

#405 was one instance of a systemic problem: Python's \s matches newlines, so every \s+/\s* in a static pattern can silently bridge a paragraph boundary (blank line) and stitch together two unrelated sentences. #417 fixed the one reported regex. The disease is everywhere else:

• 1,485 occurrences of \s+/\s* across all 15 static_patterns_*.py files (counted on current main).
• All of them run via re.finditer(pattern, content, re.IGNORECASE | re.MULTILINE) over the whole file content, so nothing stops a match from spanning paragraphs.

Reproducible example, live on main today

The pattern directly below the one #417 fixed, in the same EA1 list:

(r"(?:allow|grant|enable)\s+(?:access\s+to\s+)?(?:all|any|every)\s+tools?", 0.8)

against this benign markdown:

lists the features you enable

Any tools mentioned below require review.

matches enable\n\nAny tools → EA1/0.8 false positive bridging two unrelated paragraphs. Every prose-style pattern in all 15 files has the same exposure.

Why per-pattern fixes are the wrong tool

Replacing \s+ with [ \t]+ per pattern is wrong for prose: a sentence soft-wrapped mid-phrase (allow access to\nall tools) is one sentence and should match. The bug is only crossing blank lines (paragraph boundaries). Hand-tuning 1,485 quantifiers case-by-case is unmaintainable whack-a-mole — #405/#417 was one mole.

Proposed direction (one fix, all 15 files)

Fix it once in the shared runner instead of in every pattern. Options, in rough order of preference:

1. Split content into paragraphs (re.split(r"\n[ \t]*\n", content)) in the shared matching loop and run patterns per paragraph, offsetting line numbers. No pattern changes at all. Single-line config patterns (like EA1's wildcard) are unaffected.
2. Rewrite quantifiers at compile time: a small helper that transforms \s+/\s* into (?:[^\S\n]|\n(?![ \t]*\n))+ (whitespace, but a newline only when not followed by a blank line) before re.compile. Keeps whole-content matching for anything that legitimately needs it.
3. Per-pattern audits — only as a last resort, for patterns that intentionally span paragraphs (none found so far).

Option 1 is the smallest diff and the easiest to reason about; it also makes matched text/line attribution cleaner (no more 'enable\n\nAny tools' spans in reports).

Acceptance criteria

• The example above no longer fires.
• Existing single-line and same-paragraph positive tests still pass unchanged.
• A regression test asserts that no static pattern can match across a blank line.