feat(review): skip auto-review of docs-only PRs via review.auto_review.skip_docs_only

[bohdansolovie]

Summary

• Add review.auto_review.skip_docs_only to the focus manifest so maintainers can skip AI auto-review when every changed file classifies as docs (classifyChangedFile === "docs").
• Thread PR changed paths through resolveAutoReviewSkipForPullRequest / evaluateAutoReviewSkipReason, emitting review skipped (docs only) audit events. Empty file lists fail-safe to eligible.
• Add unit, wiring, precedence-matrix, and queue integration tests for all-docs skip, mixed docs+source eligibility, empty list eligibility, and explicit off/null behavior.

Fixes #2063

Test plan

• npx tsc -p tsconfig.json --noEmit
• focus-manifest parse/evaluate/round-trip tests for skip_docs_only
• auto-review-wiring tests for resolver + resolveAutoReviewSkipForPullRequest
• auto-review-config-matrix precedence case for docs-only skip
• queue.test.ts integration test for docs-only skip + audit detail

Made with Cursor

[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 04:19:02 UTC}

7 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 62/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This PR adds a `review.auto_review.skip_docs_only` focus-manifest flag that skips AI auto-review when every changed file classifies as "docs" via the existing `classifyChangedFile` helper, threading `changedPaths` through `evaluateAutoReviewSkipReason`/`resolvePullRequestAutoReviewSkipReason`/`resolveAutoReviewSkipForPullRequest` and into the queue processor. The empty-list fail-safe (empty changedPaths ⇒ not docs-only ⇒ eligible), parse/serialize round-trip, and precedence-matrix placement all look correct and are exercised by matching unit, wiring, and queue-integration tests. The one thing I can't verify from the diff alone is whether `getReviewFiles()` in `processors.ts` (now called unconditionally to build `autoReviewChangedPaths`) is memoized/already-fetched elsewhere in `maybePublishPrPublicSurface`, or whether this adds a redundant GitHub API fetch on every PR regardless of whether `skip_docs_only` is even configured.

Nits — 6 non-blocking

• src/queue/processors.ts: confirm `getReviewFiles()` is cached/memoized within `maybePublishPrPublicSurface` — as written it's called unconditionally just to populate `autoReviewChangedPaths`, and if it isn't already memoized for the changed_files_summary/effort_score computation mentioned in the adjacent comment, this adds an extra fetch even when `skip_docs_only` is unset.
• test/unit/queue.test.ts: the docs-only integration test stubs `/pulls/79/files` inline but relies on the same fetch mock also backing `getReviewFiles()` elsewhere in the flow — worth a comment noting that reuse so a future reader doesn't assume it's redundant.
• src/signals/focus-manifest.ts:421: the doc comment cites issue `feat(review): skip auto-review of docs-only PRs via review.auto_review.skip_docs_only #2063` inline; consistent with the file's existing convention for other flags, so fine as-is, but worth keeping an eye on drift if the numbering scheme changes.
• Consider adding a short code comment at the `getReviewFiles()` call site in processors.ts noting whether it's already-memoized, to make the reuse (or lack thereof) explicit for reviewers.
• The precedence-matrix test in auto-review-config-matrix.test.ts is a good pattern for future auto_review flags — keep extending it as new skip predicates are added.
• 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	✅ Linked	#2063
Related work	⚠️ 3 scoped overlaps	Top overlaps are listed below; lower-confidence bulk is hidden.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	❌ 5/25	Preflight is holding this PR: the review lane is unavailable, so it is not ready for automated review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 331 registered-repo PR(s), 195 merged, 8 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bohdansolovie; Gittensor profile; 331 PR(s), 8 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

Review context

• Author: bohdansolovie
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: Python, C++, JavaScript
• Official Gittensor activity: 331 PR(s), 8 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 7 meaningful terms. (issue #2051, issue #2046)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 7 meaningful terms. (issue #2051, issue #2047)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 7 meaningful terms. (issue #2051, issue #2048)
• Additional title-only matches omitted; title-only overlap does not block.

Contributor next steps

• Review top overlaps.
• Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Await review-lane availability.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.
• 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

[loopover-orb]

Gittensory approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.