It loops back to 1

Description has to state explicitly what to do with names with multiple occurences of common letters.
Take the following example:

show_relationship('KEVIN', 'ANN') == "Enemies"
KEVIN and ANN have character `N` in common.
You must cross out all Ns in both names: 1 in KEVI~N~ and 2 in A~NN~.
After this step, only 5 letters remain.

Approved some time ago

One of the easiest to understand imo

I think there's a problem with the randomized test. Cause it says on the log:
HSREBQTK
FLLCG
13
1
We get the value 1 which obviously corresponds to "Friendship" but an error occurs and says:
expected:<[Siblings]> but was:<[Friendship]>
although on previous randomized test with the same result:
KRK
BOOZJDTZVI
13
1
There is no error
Please fix this.

Indeed, and in fact what is the expected outcome of that?

Since the F is counted as the first step, what should we consider "step 0"?

random tests added

The "else" wasn't needed ;)

What happens if the total remaining characters > 6 ?

Theres more too it than that bud. Follow the logic. You're saying everything that's not 0 and divisable by 3 is Java.

What about Coffe, CoffeeScript, and Javascript?

if (n != 0) {
      if (n%3==0 && n%4 != 0) {
        if(n%2==0)  {
          return "JavaScript";
        }
        else {
          return "Java";
        }
      
      }  // not devis 4
      
      else if (n%3==0 && n%4==0) {
        if(n%2==0) {
          return "CoffeeScript";
        }
        else {
          return "Coffee";
        }
        
      } // devise form  
          
    } // MAIN IF
    
    
    return "mocha_missing"; // ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You really need randomized tests to make all these hard-coded implementations to fail.

Two test cases don't seem to evaluate properly.

In the description, step 4 is still missing the S for siblings.

i.e.
4. FLAMES --> 1>F 2>L 3>A 4>M 5>E 6>S

6>S is missing

I am having the same problem. Solved it in Python, but for the life of me the test cases for Java are not lining up with how I would assume a "best practice" solution would look like.