fix(ci): drop id-token from the Claude workflows and tighten the review comment

CodeQL alert #121 flags the pr-head checkout in the PR review job. The
checkout is deliberate and nothing in the job executes it, but the job still
carried `id-token: write`, and so did the issue analyst. claude-code-action
only uses OIDC to trade for a Claude GitHub App token when no github_token is
passed - that app token asks for contents, pull_requests and issues write -
or for workload identity, which neither workflow uses. Both pass
github_token, so the permission did nothing for them, yet any code running
in either job could have minted that write token, undoing the review's
read-only split.

Three reviews posted on one morning (#6666, #6675, #6752) also showed rubric
gaps. REVIEW.md said both "open with the verdict" and "lead with No blocking
issues", so the comments opened three ways and two tallies dropped
severities; the opening is now a fixed order - tag line only when blocking,
verdict paragraph, one status line whose tally names all three severities.
#6675 filed a spoofable X-Forwarded-For IP, which that PR first shows to an
admin approving a login, under Design; Design now holds approaches and
trade-offs only, and a concrete consequence the change makes reachable or
worse is a finding. The coverage list ran to some 25 nested lines on #6752;
it is now ten lines at most, one per area, no nested bullets.

.github/workflows/claude-issue-analyst.yml

@@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ on:
 permissions:
   contents: read
   issues: write
-  id-token: write
 
 jobs:
   issue-analyst:
@@ -29,7 +28,6 @@ jobs:
     permissions:
       contents: read
       issues: write
-      id-token: write
     steps:
       - name: Record when this run started
         id: started

.github/workflows/claude-pr-review.yml

@@ -99,7 +99,6 @@ jobs:
       contents: read
       pull-requests: read
       issues: read
-      id-token: write
     env:
       GH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
       REPO: ${{ github.repository }}
@@ -297,8 +296,9 @@ jobs:
             with the Write tool - the only file you may write - as your last
             action, never a placeholder or a draft. Whatever that file holds
             when your turn ends is what the workflow posts; a run that ends
-            without the finished review in it has failed. The comment opens
-            with the verdict, then the tally, carries the line
+            without the finished review in it has failed. The comment follows
+            the opening order in `REVIEW.md` - verdict paragraph, then the
+            status line with the full tally - carries the line
             `Reviewed head: ${{ needs.prepare.outputs.sha }}`, gives each
             finding in full with its `file:line`, and ends with the coverage list
             `REVIEW.md` asks for, whether or not you found anything. When there is