docs(gardening): correct contributor-available target to per-repo, not combined

[JSONbored]

Summary

.claude/skills/contributor-pipeline-gardening/SKILL.md previously stated the contributor-available issue target was "roughly 30-50, combined across both repos (gittensory + metagraphed)". This was factually wrong.

The repo owner corrected this on 2026-07-14: each repo needs its own 50-100+ open contributor-available issues (unassigned, no maintainer-only, carries a gittensor:* label) focused on that repo's actual goals. It is not a combined/shared pool split between gittensory and metagraphed — each repo is judged independently.

This PR fixes the two places in the skill doc that stated the old "30-50 combined" target so the daily gardening automation sizes its backlog top-up correctly per repo.

Changes

• .claude/skills/contributor-pipeline-gardening/SKILL.md: updated the "Pass 2 — backlog top-up" target line and the "Quality over the number" bullet to reflect the corrected per-repo 50-100+ target.

Test plan

• Doc-only change; no code/CI surface affected.
• Confirmed no other occurrences of the old "30-50" / "combined" target language remain in this skill's SKILL.md or reference.md.

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-14 19:42:48 UTC}

1 file · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · readiness 100/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This is a doc-only correction to `.claude/skills/contributor-pipeline-gardening/SKILL.md`, changing the contributor-available issue target from a combined 30-50 across gittensory+metagraphed to a per-repo 50-100+, per the maintainer's stated correction. The two edits are consistent with each other and with the reference.md context provided, and the description accurately matches the diff. This is a self-referential/meta change (the review-engine's own maintainer-authored automation instructions), not a code or issue-linked contributor PR in the normal sense.

Nits — 2 non-blocking

• The PR description doesn't link an eligible open contributor issue, but this reads as a maintainer-authored correction to internal automation docs rather than a contributor feature PR, so the usual issue-linkage requirement may not apply here — worth confirming intent.
• Consider grepping the sibling reference.md and any other skill docs one more time for stray '30-50' or 'combined' phrasing beyond what's already checked, since this target is referenced in multiple places across the skill set.

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.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

Fix the following blocker(s) from this PR review:

1. No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

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: 45 registered-repo PR(s), 37 merged, 260 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 45 PR(s), 260 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.
Improvement	⚠️ ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: clean · value: insufficient-signal — Nothing measurable for the structural-improvement analyzers on this PR (e.g. no code files changed).

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, TypeScript, Ruby, Go, JavaScript, MDX, Shell, Solidity
• Official Gittensor activity: 45 PR(s), 260 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.

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.

[BETA] Chat with Gittensory

Ask Gittensory a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @gittensory ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @gittensory chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @gittensory mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically -- no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://gittensory.aethereal.dev/docs/gittensory-commands

_{🟩 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 LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review