feat(enrichment): classify long-form doc extensions as docs

[davion-knight]

Summary

categorizeFile (in review-enrichment/src/analysis-context.ts) assigns each changed file a category (docs, source, asset, lockfile, …) used for review scheduling/scope. Its docs list recognized only .md/.mdx/.rst/.txt, so the long-form doc spellings .markdown, .adoc, and .asciidoc fell through to the source category — a NOTES.markdown or guide.adoc change was mischaracterized as a source change rather than documentation.

This adds the three spellings to the docs extension list:

• Consistency anchor: the canonical DOCS_EXTENSIONS set in src/signals/path-matchers.ts (md, mdx, markdown, rst, adoc, asciidoc) and rag.ts's DOC_EXT_RE already classify all three as docs — rag.ts even carries a comment noting these long-form spellings were a known miss elsewhere. This brings the categorizer in line.
• Case-insensitive: matching uses the existing lowercased-extension path, so README.ADOC classifies as docs.
• Additive-only: three list entries plus a test; no existing category changes for any other extension.

No linked issue

This is a no-issue PR by design: a self-contained classification-coverage fix that adds three doc extensions to categorizeFile plus a focused test, touching only review-enrichment/. There is no behavior change beyond correctly categorizing these docs, so no tracking issue is needed. It mirrors the accepted no-issue precedent for the same kind of classification-inventory change (e.g. the recently-merged #3204 and #3264).

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 linked issue — see the No linked issue section above.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage — no src/** lines changed (this change is under review-enrichment/, which Codecov does not measure), so codecov/patch has no diff to gate; suite is green.
• 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
• New behavior has tests — a new case in review-enrichment/test/analysis-context.test.ts drives createAnalysisContext and asserts .markdown/.adoc/.asciidoc (and uppercase .ADOC) categorize as docs, while .ts stays source. npm run rees:test passes (863 tests; analyzer-metadata check clean).

Validated green against the full GitHub CI validate-code check set — actionlint, db:migrations:check, db:schema-drift:check, cf-typegen:check, selfhost:validate-observability, typecheck, test:coverage, test:workers, build:mcp, test:mcp-pack, build:miner, rees:test, ui:openapi:check, ui:openapi:settings-parity, ui:version-audit, ui:lint, ui:typecheck, ui:test, ui:build. Branch rebased on latest main.

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.
• No auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes (N/A — pure classification-list addition).
• No API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior change (N/A).
• No UI changes (N/A — this is a review-enrichment helper).
• No visible UI change, so no UI Evidence section is required.
• No docs/changelog changes needed.

Notes

Analogues followed end-to-end: the existing category tests in analysis-context.test.ts (e.g. the .zst asset and case-insensitive lockfile cases), and the recently-merged classification-inventory PRs #3204 and #3264. .txt is intentionally left in the docs list (it is not in the canonical DOCS_EXTENSIONS but is present in rag.ts's DOC_EXT_RE) — this PR only adds the missing long-form spellings and changes nothing else.

[superagent-security]

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

[gittensory-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-05 03:09:06 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 73/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This change correctly extends `categorizeFile` so `.markdown`, `.adoc`, and `.asciidoc` now land in the existing `docs` category, with case-insensitive coverage coming from the existing `extensionOf(...).toLowerCase()` path. The added test exercises the real `createAnalysisContext` path and verifies both the new long-form spellings and the existing source fallback, so the fix is grounded in production wiring. I do not see a reachable correctness issue in the visible diff.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• nit: `review-enrichment/src/analysis-context.ts:443` continues the duplicated docs-extension inventory rather than sharing the canonical set mentioned in the comment, so this can drift again the next time docs extensions change.
• nit: `review-enrichment/test/analysis-context.test.ts:548` uses PR number `3264`, which is unrelated test metadata; a neutral local fixture number would make the test less coupled to prior PR history.
• `review-enrichment/src/analysis-context.ts:443`: consider hoisting the docs extension list into a local `const DOC_EXTENSIONS = new Set([...])`, or reuse the canonical matcher if the package boundary allows it, so additions are not buried inside `categorizeFile`.
• `review-enrichment/test/analysis-context.test.ts:548`: use a neutral fixture `prNumber` unless this test intentionally documents behavior from that prior PR.
• 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	⚠️ 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	❌ 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: 31 registered-repo PR(s), 23 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	davion-knight; Gittensor profile; 31 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

Review context

• Author: davion-knight
• Role context: outside_contributor
• 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: 31 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Explain no-issue PR.
• Await review-lane availability.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.
• 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

[gittensory-orb]

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