fix(review): hold required automated-review skips from PR metadata

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• Prevent contributor-controlled PR metadata (title keywords or base-branch selection) from quietly suppressing a configured blocking automated review and allowing an automatic merge path.
• Treat metadata-driven skips that would otherwise bypass an enforced automated-review gate as a human-review hold so the gate cannot be silently bypassed.

Description

• Add a classifier isContributorControlledAutoReviewSkipReason that marks title-keyword and base-branch skip reasons as contributor-controlled.
• Add maybeAddRequiredAutoReviewSkipHold in the review processor to append an inconclusive, non-blocking hold finding when a contributor-controlled skip occurs while the repository requires a blocking automated review.
• Wire the hold helper into the PR processing flow before the automated-review-run decision so the gate sees the hold (and becomes neutral/held) instead of passing.
• Add unit tests covering the new classifier and the required-review hold wiring and update manifest tests to exercise the new behavior.

Testing

• Ran git diff --check with no errors.
• Ran the targeted unit tests with npx vitest run test/unit/focus-manifest.test.ts test/unit/auto-review-wiring.test.ts --reporter=dot, and all exercised tests passed (2 files, 470 tests).
• Ran type checks with npm run typecheck, which completed successfully.
• Attempted a full gate run with npm run test:ci, which started but was not completed locally due to transient network/setup and a long coverage phase; actionlint fell back and the coverage phase was terminated in this environment.
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate could not complete here due to the registry audit endpoint returning 403 Forbidden.

---

Codex Task

[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 07:50:09 UTC}

4 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI green · dirty

⏸️ 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 PR closes a real gap: contributor-controlled PR metadata (WIP title, base branch) could silently satisfy a blocking auto-review requirement and let a PR merge without AI review ever running. The new isContributorControlledAutoReviewSkipReason classifier correctly limits itself to the two attacker-controllable skip reasons (title keyword, base branch), and maybeAddRequiredAutoReviewSkipHold only fires when the repo actually requires blocking review, pushing a non-blocking 'ai_review_inconclusive' finding rather than failing the run outright. Tests cover the classifier's true/false cases and the hold wiring (added, not-added-for-label-skip, not-added-when-review-mode-off), and CI/typecheck/codecov all passed on this commit.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• Whether the pushed 'ai_review_inconclusive' finding actually causes the gate/disposition logic to hold rather than pass is not visible in this diff (that logic lives outside the shown files) — worth double-checking the gate's finding-severity handling for this code, since if it's ever treated as non-blocking the whole PR wouldn't achieve its stated goal.
• processors.ts: maybeAddRequiredAutoReviewSkipHold's args includes skipAiReview but the function body never reads it directly — confirm it's genuinely needed by shouldRequirePublicAiReviewForAdvisory (called with the same args object) rather than being dead plumbing.
• The hold call is placed before the authorBlacklisted/isFrozenForManualReview checks later in the flow — worth a comment or test noting the hold is independent of those states so a future refactor doesn't accidentally gate it on them.
• Add a code comment at the maybeAddRequiredAutoReviewSkipHold call site in processors.ts noting why it must run before the aiReviewWillRun decision, since the ordering is load-bearing for the fix.
• Consider a follow-up test that exercises the full PR-processing path (not just the unit-level hold helper) to confirm the finding actually changes the end-to-end gate disposition on a repo with review.auto_review configured to block.

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: 54 registered-repo PR(s), 46 merged, 439 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 54 PR(s), 439 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: 54 PR(s), 439 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.
• 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 93.30%. Comparing base (ede8961) to head (462d0fc).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3721   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.29%   93.30%           
=======================================
  Files         317      317           
  Lines       32368    32375    +7     
  Branches    11872    11875    +3     
=======================================
+ Hits        30199    30206    +7     
  Misses       1537     1537           
  Partials      632      632           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/queue/processors.ts	94.12% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/signals/focus-manifest.ts	99.10% <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.