fix(selfhost): preserve legacy dual-review behavior for multi-provider AI_PROVIDER

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• A recent change collapsed comma-separated AI_PROVIDER lists into a single reviewer plus fallback unless AI_DUAL_REVIEW was explicitly set, silently downgrading deployments that relied on an explicit multi-provider dual-review plan.
• Operator-configured AI_COMBINE / AI_ON_MERGE semantics were intended to preserve two independent reviewers for legacy multi-provider configs and must not be ignored.

Description

• Restore legacy dual-review behavior when the operator explicitly sets AI_COMBINE or AI_ON_MERGE by treating those env values as an indicator that a multi-provider AI_PROVIDER list intends two independent reviewers, while leaving plain comma-separated lists without those flags as single-reviewer fallback chains (change in resolveAiReviewerPlan in src/selfhost/ai.ts).
• Add a regression test that asserts legacy multi-provider AI_COMBINE/AI_ON_MERGE configs resolve to two independent reviewers (update in test/unit/selfhost-ai.test.ts).
• Regenerate the self-host env reference to keep generated line references in sync after the resolver changes (update in apps/gittensory-ui/src/lib/selfhost-env-reference.ts).

Testing

• Ran npm run selfhost:env-reference:check and it succeeded updating/validating the generated env reference file.
• Ran targeted unit tests npx vitest run test/unit/selfhost-ai.test.ts -t "resolveProviderNames|resolveAiReviewerPlan" and npx vitest run test/unit/ai-review.test.ts -t "self-host dual-AI plan", and the focused tests passed.
• Attempted the full local gate via npm run test:ci; the run progressed to coverage but could not be completed in this environment (long-running suites / coverage aggregation caused the invocation to be interrupted), and npm audit --audit-level=moderate returned a registry error (403) when attempted here.

---

Codex Task

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying with    Cloudflare Workers

The latest updates on your project. Learn more about integrating Git with Workers.

Status	Name	Latest Commit	Preview URL	Updated (UTC)
✅ Deployment successful! View logs	gittensory-ui	d1879a7	Commit Preview URL Branch Preview URL	Jul 06 2026, 12:48 AM

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-06 00:52:16 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

Review summary
This is a narrow, well-targeted revert-and-fix: resolveAiReviewerPlan in src/selfhost/ai.ts now treats an explicit AI_COMBINE or AI_ON_MERGE as a legacy signal that a multi-provider AI_PROVIDER list wants two independent reviewers, restoring dual-review behavior that a recent change silently regressed, while leaving plain comma-separated lists without those flags on the single-reviewer fallback path. The single-provider early return was hoisted above the AI_DUAL_REVIEW check but is otherwise unchanged in logic (fallback resolves to undefined either way), so it's behavior-preserving. The regression test explicitly covers both the legacy-config-restores-dual-review case and confirms the fallback-chain default is unchanged when AI_COMBINE/AI_ON_MERGE are absent, and the generated env-reference line numbers are consistently updated to match the moved code.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• The PR description doesn't reference a specific tracked issue number for this regression fix — worth confirming there's an open issue this closes per the contribution policy.
• src/selfhost/ai.ts's resolveAiReviewerPlan is approaching the flagged 400-line file threshold; consider whether the dual-review resolution logic could be split out, though this diff doesn't need to be the one to do it.
• Consider adding a test case for AI_COMBINE/AI_ON_MERGE set to an empty string to explicitly document that empty-string values do NOT trigger legacy dual-review (the .trim() !== "" check implies this but it's not directly asserted in the visible diff).
• If not already covered elsewhere, a test with exactly 2 providers plus only AI_COMBINE (no AI_ON_MERGE) would round out coverage of the hasLegacyDualReviewConfig OR-condition's two branches.

Concerns raised — review before merging

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 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 (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 55 registered-repo PR(s), 46 merged, 464 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 55 PR(s), 464 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: 55 PR(s), 464 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Explain no-issue PR.
• 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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.29%. Comparing base (2156f42) to head (d1879a7).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3625   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.29%   93.29%           
=======================================
  Files         314      314           
  Lines       32057    32058    +1     
  Branches    11748    11749    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        29906    29907    +1     
  Misses       1517     1517           
  Partials      634      634           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/selfhost/ai.ts	98.59% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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