feat: auto-approve zap requests (9734) under "Let's be reasonable"

Signing a Lightning zap request moves no money — it only fetches an
invoice. The payment itself is the separately-gated value.payInvoice
capability, which prompts on every use regardless of policy. So adding
9734 to the reasonable set drops a redundant signature prompt while the
meaningful payment prompt stays.

Nutzaps (9321) remain excluded: publishing one *is* the payment, since
the event carries the spendable ecash proofs. Test pins the contrast.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WMrHZfwN5tM4ecvdz7xigo

commons/src/commonMain/kotlin/com/vitorpamplona/amethyst/commons/napplet/signers/NostrSignerPermissionLedger.kt

@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ import com.vitorpamplona.quartz.nip22Comments.CommentEvent
 import com.vitorpamplona.quartz.nip25Reactions.ReactionEvent
 import com.vitorpamplona.quartz.nip28PublicChat.message.ChannelMessageEvent
 import com.vitorpamplona.quartz.nip38UserStatus.StatusEvent
+import com.vitorpamplona.quartz.nip57Zaps.LnZapRequestEvent
 import com.vitorpamplona.quartz.nip68Picture.PictureEvent
 import com.vitorpamplona.quartz.nip84Highlights.HighlightEvent
 import com.vitorpamplona.quartz.utils.TimeUtils
@@ -139,7 +140,10 @@ class NostrSignerPermissionLedger(
          * when doing so **cannot harm the user**. Everything here is *additive, public, and
          * non-destructive* — creating a new note-like event that the user could delete afterwards, in
          * the same risk class as the original kind 1/6/7 set. None of them can silently:
-         *  - spend money (zaps/nutzaps are gated separately and always prompt),
+         *  - spend money — signing a **zap request** (9734) moves nothing; it only fetches a Lightning
+         *    invoice, and the payment itself is the separately-gated `value.payInvoice` capability that
+         *    prompts on *every* use regardless of policy. **Nutzaps (9321) are excluded**: publishing
+         *    one *is* the payment (the event carries the spendable ecash proofs), so it stays ASK.
          *  - overwrite account configuration (profile 0, contacts 3, relay/mute/bookmark lists are
          *    replaceable — a bad write can wipe settings, so they stay ASK),
          *  - delete existing content (kind 5), or
@@ -157,6 +161,7 @@ class NostrSignerPermissionLedger(
                 PictureEvent.KIND, // 20 — picture posts (same risk as kind 1)
                 ChannelMessageEvent.KIND, // 42 — public chat messages
                 HighlightEvent.KIND, // 9802 — highlighted snippets shared publicly
+                LnZapRequestEvent.KIND, // 9734 — Lightning zap request; the payment itself still prompts
                 CommentEvent.KIND, // 1111 — NIP-22 threaded comments (same risk as kind 1)
                 StatusEvent.KIND, // 30315 — ephemeral user status / presence
             )

commons/src/commonTest/kotlin/com/vitorpamplona/amethyst/commons/napplet/signers/NostrSignerPermissionLedgerTest.kt

@@ -50,10 +50,12 @@ class NostrSignerPermissionLedgerTest {
             val ledger = NostrSignerPermissionLedger(InMemoryNostrSignerPermissionStore())
             ledger.setPolicy(coordinate, AppSignerPolicy.REASONABLE)
 
-            // Profile (0), contacts (3), deletion (5), relay list (10002), zap request (9734),
-            // and gift-wrapped DM (1059) must never auto-sign — they change config, delete, spend,
-            // or leak. Decryption reveals private content, so it also asks.
-            for (kind in listOf(0, 3, 5, 10002, 9734, 1059)) {
+            // Profile (0), contacts (3), deletion (5), relay list (10002), nutzap (9321), and
+            // gift-wrapped DM (1059) must never auto-sign — they change config, delete, spend ecash,
+            // or leak. A nutzap in particular *is* the payment (it carries the ecash proofs), unlike a
+            // zap request (9734) which only fetches an invoice. Decryption reveals private content, so
+            // it also asks.
+            for (kind in listOf(0, 3, 5, 10002, 9321, 1059)) {
                 assertEquals(
                     NostrOpDecision.ASK,
                     ledger.decide(coordinate, NostrSignerOp.SignKind(kind)),
@@ -61,6 +63,11 @@ class NostrSignerPermissionLedgerTest {
                 )
             }
             assertEquals(NostrOpDecision.ASK, ledger.decide(coordinate, NostrSignerOp.Decrypt))
+
+            // Contrast: a Lightning zap request (9734) auto-signs (the payment prompts separately),
+            // but an ecash nutzap (9321) does not — publishing it spends the tokens.
+            assertEquals(NostrOpDecision.ALLOW, ledger.decide(coordinate, NostrSignerOp.SignKind(9734)))
+            assertEquals(NostrOpDecision.ASK, ledger.decide(coordinate, NostrSignerOp.SignKind(9321)))
         }
 
     @Test