ok, inline terms

[torrmal]

This resolves
#112
and it's a cleaner experience

[torrmal]

@sejubar can you help me review this, thank you

[entelligence-ai-pr-reviews]

EntelligenceAI PR Summary

Introduces inline policy viewing to the CLI terms consent flow and bundles policy text as lazily-loaded constants.

• anton/cli.py: Extracted _render_terms_screen (displays a Rich Panel with _TERMS_SUMMARY) and _show_full_policies (renders full markdown via system pager) from _ensure_terms_consent
• anton/cli.py: Replaced Confirm.ask + browser-open with a looping Prompt.ask supporting y/n/s responses
• anton/policies.py: Added new module with TERMS_OF_USE_MD and PRIVACY_POLICY_MD constants (~14KB), lazily imported by the consent flow

---

Confidence Score: 5/5 - Safe to Merge

Safe to merge — this PR cleanly introduces an inline policy viewing flow to the CLI terms consent process, extracting _render_terms_screen and _show_full_policies from _ensure_terms_consent in anton/cli.py and adding a new anton/policies.py module with lazily-loaded TERMS_OF_USE_MD and PRIVACY_POLICY_MD constants. The refactoring replaces a Confirm.ask + browser-open pattern with a more user-friendly looping Prompt.ask supporting y/n/s responses, which is a clear UX improvement. No review comments were generated, both changed files were covered in analysis, and no critical, significant, or medium issues were identified.

Key Findings:

• The extraction of _render_terms_screen and _show_full_policies into dedicated functions improves separation of concerns and testability without introducing logic regressions in _ensure_terms_consent.
• The new anton/policies.py module bundles policy text as lazily-loaded constants, avoiding unnecessary I/O or network calls at import time — a sound design choice for a CLI tool.
• The looping Prompt.ask with y/n/s responses is a more robust UX pattern than a one-shot Confirm.ask + browser-open, giving users the ability to review inline before consenting.
• Zero issues (critical, significant, or medium) were flagged by heuristic analysis across both changed files, and there are no unresolved pre-existing review comments.

Files requiring special attention

• anton/cli.py
• anton/policies.py

[sejubar]

lgtm

[sejubar]

tested on this branch and looks good to me.

[sejubar]

@torrmal #112 there is a comment from the user. Do we want to address this?