fix: use judge parameter in repeatedly log

[GHX5T-SOL]

Summary

• use the judge: parameter in the Fbe.repeatedly skip log instead of the $judge global
• add regression coverage for the parameter/global mismatch

Closes #464.

Validation

• bundle exec ruby test/fbe/test_repeatedly.rb (2 tests, 6 assertions, 0 failures)
• bundle exec rake test (274 tests, 774 assertions, 0 failures, 9 skips)
• bundle exec rake rubocop (65 files inspected, no offenses)
• bundle exec rake yard (completed, 81.82% documented)
• bundle exec rake picks (exited 0)
• git diff --check HEAD~1 HEAD (passed)
• git show --format= --patch HEAD | gitleaks stdin --no-banner --redact --timeout 30 (no leaks found)

Notes

• Local validation used Homebrew portable Ruby 4.0.3 because the system Ruby is 2.6.10.
• The test runs emit Ruby 4/Bundler constant redefinition warnings and existing award.rb future frozen string warnings, but the commands above exited 0.

[edmoffo]

The one-line change in lib/fbe/repeatedly.rb and the regression test in test/fbe/test_repeatedly.rb cover the parameter/global mismatch on the skip-log line. CI is green.

[bibonix]

The one-line change in lib/fbe/repeatedly.rb line 48 replaces the $judge global with the judge parameter in the skip-log message, which matches the fix described in #464 and aligns the log line with how the rest of the method already uses the parameter. The new test_log_uses_judge_parameter_not_global test sets the global and the parameter to different values and asserts the parameter wins, which pins the regression. CI is green across all jobs.

One leftover: the guard raise(Fbe::Error, 'The $judge is not set') if judge.nil? on line 39 still names the global, even though it now checks the parameter. Worth a follow-up on the message text, but not blocking this fix.

[0crat]

@bibonix Thanks for the review! You've earned +6 points for this contribution: +18 as a basis, -8 for absolutely no comments posted, and -4 for too few (22) hits-of-code. Your running score is +406; don't forget to check your Zerocracy account too.

[0crat]

@edmoffo Thanks for the review! You've earned +6 points for this contribution: +18 as the base reward, -8 for no comments posted during review, and -4 for having fewer than 24 hits-of-code (22 total). Your running score is +76; don't forget to check your Zerocracy account too.

[0crat]

@GHX5T-SOL Hey! Nice work on your contribution! 🎉 You scored +20 points this time: started with the standard +24 base points, but lost 4 points since your 22 hits-of-code was under our 30 minimum. To max out your bonus next time, aim for that sweet spot of 30-133 hits-of-code and make sure to get some code reviews - our policy rewards quality contributions that hit these targets! Keep the awesome work coming. Your running score is +32 - don't forget to check your Zerocracy account too!