docs(ai): reword stale workers-ai-only comments across the review stack

[JSONbored]

Summary

• Follow-up to refactor(ai): remove legacy workers-ai framing from live review features #3270 (the live-code cleanup). Workers AI has no live binding anywhere today — hosted or self-host (see CONVERGENCE_RUNBOOK.md's resource inventory). Several docstrings and inline comments across the review stack still described Workers AI as the current default reviewer, embedding model, or AI Gateway backend, when it's actually the historical last-resort fallback (only reachable when no self-host provider is configured at all).
• Reworded stale comments in src/review/rag.ts (InferenceAdapter doc, EMBED_MODEL/EMBED_BATCH comments), src/review/adapters.ts (reviewInferenceAdapter header), src/types.ts (slopAiAdvisory/aiReviewByok/aiReviewProvider doc comments), src/db/repositories.ts (getDecryptedRepositoryAiKey doc), src/env.d.ts (WORKERS_AI_SUMMARY_MODEL/AI_DAILY_NEURON_BUDGET inline docs, mirroring AI_GATEWAY_ID's existing accurate framing), .env.example, and the .gittensory.yml / gittensory-repo-focus-manifest.ts bundled example (kept byte-identical to each other, verified by the existing keeps bundled YAML aligned test).
• Comment/doc-only — no behavior change. No new model defaults, error strings, or usage-tracking wiring (that's refactor(ai): remove legacy workers-ai framing from live review features #3270).

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• No issue linked — comment-only follow-up to refactor(ai): remove legacy workers-ai framing from live review features #3270, self-evident in scope.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint (via npm run test:ci)
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage — comment-only diff, no new lines requiring coverage; full suite green (8806 passed)
• npm run test:workers
• npm run build:mcp
• npm run test:mcp-pack
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npm run ui:lint
• npm run ui:typecheck
• npm run ui:build
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate — 0 vulnerabilities
• Ran the full npm run test:ci gate locally — green

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests. — N/A
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed. — N/A, no API/OpenAPI/MCP surface changes.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states. — N/A, no UI changes.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section. — N/A, no visible UI changes.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed. — N/A, no changelog edit.

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.12%. Comparing base (5f5c584) to head (02ce7be).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3274   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.12%   94.12%           
=======================================
  Files         276      276           
  Lines       30202    30202           
  Branches    11011    11011           
=======================================
  Hits        28429    28429           
  Misses       1127     1127           
  Partials      646      646           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/config/gittensory-repo-focus-manifest.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/db/repositories.ts	96.38% <ø> (ø)
src/review/adapters.ts	94.11% <ø> (ø)
src/review/rag.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-05 00:21:22 UTC}

8 files · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · readiness 100/100 · 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 is a comment-only cleanup that consistently reframes Workers AI as a legacy fallback rather than the active default across RAG, review adapter, env, repository-key, and config example docs. The bundled `.gittensory.yml` and manifest example stay aligned in the visible diff, and there are no schema, runtime, or generated-contract changes to review. I do not see a reachable behavior change or correctness defect in the changed lines.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• nit: src/review/rag.ts:25 uses the coined phrase `self-host-AI`, which is a little awkward compared with the rest of the diff's `self-host` / `configured provider` wording.
• nit: src/review/rag.ts:100 leaves the `EMBED_BATCH` explanation as a trailing `//` plus a follow-up line comment; a short block comment would match the nearby constant docs better.
• src/review/rag.ts:25: consider `Vectorize/self-host provider/D1-backed` to avoid introducing a new term.
• src/review/rag.ts:100: consider converting the expanded `EMBED_BATCH` note to a `/** ... */` comment for consistency with `EMBED_MODEL`, `RAG_DIMENSIONS`, and `MAX_CHUNKS_PER_REPO`.
• Code changes lack test evidence — Add focused regression tests or explain why existing coverage is sufficient.

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	✅ No-issue rationale	PR body explains why no issue is linked.
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 (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 56 registered-repo PR(s), 46 merged, 429 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 56 PR(s), 429 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: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 56 PR(s), 429 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• No action.
• 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