I previously left a comment stating I didn't know why a certain method existed. In investigating the code in `CaptureCodeContext#capture_before_after_kws` I found that it was added as to give a slightly less noisy output.

The docs for AroundBlockScan#capture_neighbor_context only describe keywords as being a primary concern. I modified that code to only include lines that are keywords or ends. This reduces the output noise even more.

This allows me to remove that `start_at_next_line` method.

One weird side effect of the prior logic is it would cause this code to produce this output:

```
        class OH
          def hello

          def hai
          end
        end
```

```
          1  class OH
        > 2    def hello
          4    def hai
          5    end
          6  end
```

But this code to produce this output:

```
        class OH
          def hello
          def hai
          end
        end
```

```
          1  class OH
        > 2    def hello
          4    end
          5  end
```
Note the missing `def hai`. The only difference between them is that space.

With this change, they're now both consistent.

https://github.com/ruby/syntax_suggest/commit/4a54767a3e

```
$ ruby tool/sync_default_gems.rb syntax_suggest
Sync ruby/syntax_suggest
```

https://github.com/ruby/syntax_suggest/pull/161

Due to a problem with ripper we do not recognize `break` as invalid code. It's confusing that "Syntax OK" is output in that case.

When there's no syntax error, the algorithm should not say anything. The exception is in the CLI and that's for compatibility with `ruby -wc`

```
$ cat /tmp/break.rb
break
⛄️ 3.1.2 🚀 /Users/rschneeman/Documents/projects/syntax_suggest (schneems/no-syntax-not-okay-break)
$ ruby -wc /tmp/break.rb
Syntax OK
```

> Note that this is invalid, running this code will raise a Syntax error.

```
$ exe/syntax_suggest /tmp/break.rb
Syntax OK
```

Close https://github.com/ruby/syntax_suggest/pull/157

https://github.com/ruby/syntax_suggest/commit/d7bd8f03a2