docs(config): correct gate knob semantics in .gittensory.yml.example

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• The example .gittensory.yml text introduced wording that does not match the runtime semantics of several enforcement-sensitive gate knobs, which could mislead maintainers into unsafe expectations.
• Specifically, the size gate wording implied a BOTH threshold, gate.dryRun was presented as suppressing enforcement, and gate.aiReview.closeConfidence was described as preventing blocks below the floor.
• The documentation should reflect the actual implemented behavior so repository owners can safely tune gate knobs.

Description

• Updated .gittensory.yml.example to clarify the Oversized-PR gate: the manual-review HOLD triggers when EITHER the changed-file count or changed-line count exceeds its threshold, matching the implemented logic (src/rules/advisory.ts).
• Reworded gate.dryRun to clarify it is a check/comment preview (the posted check may show a would-be stricter verdict) and does not disable downstream merge/close planning for failures already enforced by the gate.
• Reworded gate.aiReview.closeConfidence to document that the value is recorded for cache/calibration context and does not downgrade block-mode AI defects into advisory-only, matching the evaluator logic.
• Change is documentation-only in .gittensory.yml.example and preserves existing behavior and tests.

Testing

• Ran git diff --check which reported no whitespace/conflict issues and is clean.
• Ran the focused unit test npx vitest run test/unit/focus-manifest.test.ts --testNamePattern "parses \\.gittensory\\.yml\\.example", which passed and confirmed the example file parses with zero warnings and the parser round-trips the documented knobs.
• Attempted full local gate with npm run test:ci, and npm audit --audit-level=moderate, but those runs were blocked in this environment due to external network/setup failures (actionlint setup/network and npm audit endpoint errors) and could not be completed here.

---

Codex Task

[gittensory-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-04 05:22:11 UTC}

1 file · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · readiness 75/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• Maintainer test expectations unmet — Add or update tests, or attach passing validation output that satisfies the maintainer's test expectations.

Review summary
This documentation-only change corrects the example manifest comments to match the described gate behavior for size holds, dry-run check output, and AI-review close-confidence recording. The diff is coherent with the PR description and does not alter executable code, schema, or generated artifacts. The revised wording is specific enough to prevent the prior unsafe reading of these knobs without introducing a visible contract break in the provided context.

Concerns raised — review before merging

• Maintainer test expectations unmet — Add or update tests, or attach passing validation output that satisfies the maintainer's test expectations.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 1 blocker	1 reviewer
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
Related work	⚠️ 1 scoped overlap	Top overlaps are listed below; lower-confidence bulk is hidden.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High review scope from cached public metadata (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 60 registered-repo PR(s), 51 merged, 436 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 60 PR(s), 436 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: Python, TypeScript, JavaScript, Ruby, Go, Kotlin, MDX, Shell
• Official Gittensor activity: 60 PR(s), 436 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 9 meaningful terms. (issue #2054, issue #2055)

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Explain no-issue PR.
• Review top overlaps.
• Add a concise scope and risk note.
• No action.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.
• Check active issues and PRs before submitting.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review