fix(enrichment): enumerate generic-typed and generic-default params in doc-comment drift

[nickmopen]

Summary

Follow-up to #1794, addressing the false negative called out on its review:

The most important remaining risk is a real false negative around optional JSDoc parameter syntax with defaults, where stale docs can be silently missed.

Root cause (signature side, not the doc side). parseFunctionParams split a parameter list on every top-level comma without tracking generic <…>. So a comma inside a generic type or default value split the list mid-generic:

export function f(cache = new Map<string, number>()) {}
//                                       ^ this comma split the param list

That produced an unparseable fragment, parseFunctionParams returned null, and the whole function was skipped — so a documented-but-removed sibling parameter was silently missed (no drift reported).

Fix

Make splitParams generic-aware: on <, look ahead for a balanced matching >. If found, the <…> is treated as one opaque generic argument list (its commas don't split — Map<K, V> stays one segment). If there's no match, the </> is a comparison/arrow operator and is ignored. This:

• fixes the false negative (generic-typed and generic-default params now enumerate),
• keeps comparison defaults (max > 0 ? …) and callback/arrow defaults enumerable, and
• removes the previous need to drop type-argument fragments (no fabricated names).

Validation

From review-enrichment/ (Node 24):

npm test   # build + node --test: 290 pass / 0 fail

New coverage: parseFunctionParams on Map<K, V>, Map<K, readonly V[]>, new Map<string, number>() defaults, and nested generics; plus an end-to-end scanDocCommentDrift regression where a removed-and-documented param sits beside a sibling with a new Map<string, number>() default and is now correctly reported.

[loopover-orb]

Tip

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

✅ Gittensory review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-06-30 19:10:19 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 66/100 · CI green · unknown

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This change makes the parameter splitter aware of balanced generic angle-bracket regions and adds focused regression coverage for generic type annotations, generic defaults, and comparison defaults. The visible implementation is coherent with the analyzer’s conservative contract: valid generic comma cases now enumerate, while malformed or ambiguous signatures either continue splitting normally or fail closed. The notable detail is that `matchAngle` deliberately uses the token after the matching `>` to avoid treating normal comparison operators as generic closes, and the new tests exercise the high-risk no-space comparison paths.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• nit: `review-enrichment/src/analyzers/doc-comment-drift.ts:122` uses a Unicode minus sign in the doc comment (`−1`) while the file otherwise sticks to ASCII punctuation, so I would change it to `-1` for consistency.
• nit: `review-enrichment/src/analyzers/doc-comment-drift.ts:140` only treats one preceding backslash as an escape in string literals, so escaped-backslash-then-quote cases inside a generic type string are not modeled precisely; this is unlikely for parameter signatures but worth keeping in mind if this parser grows.
• `review-enrichment/test/doc-comment-drift.test.ts:142` already covers object and function type arguments; add one explicit escaped-string-literal case only if you intend `matchAngle` to be robust beyond normal TypeScript type syntax.
• `review-enrichment/src/analyzers/doc-comment-drift.ts:153` would be easier to audit if the accepted terminator character set from the comment lived in a named helper or constant rather than an inline regex.
• Readiness score is below the configured threshold — Use the readiness panel as advisory maintainer context; the score does not block this PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (size label size:M; no linked issue context).
Validation posture	❌ 5/25	Preflight is holding this PR; address the blocker before review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 90 registered-repo PR(s), 61 merged, 1 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	nickmopen; Gittensor profile; 90 PR(s), 1 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

Review context

• Author: nickmopen
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: TypeScript
• Official Gittensor activity: 90 PR(s), 1 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Explain no-issue PR.
• Fix the blocker.
• Triage stale or unlinked PRs.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.

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