feat(enrichment): analyze .mts/.cts files for doc-comment drift

[jeffrey701]

doc-comment-drift's SOURCE_RE gated on ts/tsx/js/jsx/mjs/cjs but omitted the TypeScript module extensions .mts/.cts, even though it already includes their JavaScript siblings .mjs/.cjs. So JSDoc/TSDoc @param drift in .mts/.cts files was never analyzed despite FUNC_DECL_RE parsing their signatures fine (the sibling undocumented-export analyzer already scans .mts/.cts). Adds both to SOURCE_RE + extends the drift test. rees build + node:test green (533).

[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: 2026-07-05 06:02:53 UTC}

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

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This change correctly extends doc-comment-drift's source-file gate to include `.mts` and `.cts`, matching the sibling analyzer's TypeScript module-extension coverage and the already-supported `.mjs`/`.cjs` JavaScript module files. The new test drives the real `scanDocCommentDrift` path with both extensions, so it verifies the actual filter/fetch/analyze wiring instead of a fabricated lower-layer condition. I do not see a reachable correctness issue in the diff.

Nits — 1 non-blocking

• 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: 66 registered-repo PR(s), 35 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	jeffrey701; Gittensor profile; 66 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

Review context

• Author: jeffrey701
• 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: 66 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

[loopover-orb]

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