fix(review): avoid leaking private manifest warnings in public PR comments

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• Prevent container-private/self-host .gittensory configuration parse warnings from being published in public unified PR comments, which could disclose operator-only or sensitive terms.

Description

• Load the repo-published manifest for public comment rendering via loadPublicRepoFocusManifest while preserving the normal loadRepoFocusManifest for maintainer review configuration so private settings remain usable but not exposed.
• Wire the unified comment manifestWarnings to the public-only manifest (publicRepoFocusManifestForComment?.warnings ?? []) while still using the full manifest for reviewConfig.
• Added a regression unit test that registers a private local manifest sentinel and asserts that only repo-published warnings are included in the public comment and that private terms are absent.
• Modified src/queue/processors.ts and test/unit/manifest-validation-collapsible.test.ts to implement and verify the change.

Testing

• Ran the modified unit suite: npx vitest run test/unit/manifest-validation-collapsible.test.ts and all tests in that file passed.
• Ran type checking via npm run typecheck which succeeded with no errors.
• Attempted a full coverage run with npm run test:coverage, but the existing test/unit/queue.test.ts suite hit a preexisting RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded and the run was terminated, so full coverage could not be completed.

---

Codex Task

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

🛑 Gittensory review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-07 09:38:08 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · 3 blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI failing · unknown

🛑 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.
• Possible leaked secret in the diff (generic_secret_assignment) — Remove the secret from the diff, rotate the exposed credential, then re-run the gate.

Review summary
This wires manifestWarnings in the public unified comment to a new loadPublicRepoFocusManifest call (repo-published manifest only) while keeping loadRepoFocusManifest (which may include private self-host config) for reviewConfig — a sound, narrowly-scoped fix for the stated info-disclosure risk, and both the unified-comment and buildPublicPrIntelligenceComment branches share the same commentArgs so the fix isn't limited to only one rendering path. The added test exercises loadPublicRepoFocusManifest + buildUnifiedCommentBody directly and confirms the private sentinel term is excluded, but it never calls maybePublishPrPublicSurface itself, so the actual Promise.all/`.catch(() => null)`/`?? []` wiring added in processors.ts is not exercised by any test — matching the 33% patch coverage on that file's hunk. The `OPERATOR_ONLY_SECRET_9f3c` string flagged by the external brief is a deliberate test sentinel, not a real credential.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• The new integration wiring in src/queue/processors.ts (the Promise.all, the `.catch(() => null)` fallback, and the `publicRepoFocusManifestForComment?.warnings ?? []` fallback) has no test that exercises maybePublishPrPublicSurface end-to-end — the added test only unit-tests loadPublicRepoFocusManifest and buildUnifiedCommentBody in isolation, which is why codecov/patch is failing at 33%.
• The `.catch(() => null)` on loadPublicRepoFocusManifest silently swallows any failure (network/DB/parse) and falls back to an empty manifestWarnings array with no logging — worth confirming this fail-closed behavior (hide warnings on error) is intentional rather than masking a real fetch failure.
• The PR description doesn't reference a linked open issue, which this repo's contribution policy requires for external PRs — worth confirming there's an eligible issue this closes before treating it as mergeable.
• Add a test that drives maybePublishPrPublicSurface (or the smallest wrapper around it) with a private-manifest warning and a public-manifest warning present simultaneously, asserting the rendered comment only contains the public one — this is the actual changed code path and currently has zero coverage.
• Consider logging on the loadPublicRepoFocusManifest catch (e.g. a debug/warn log) so a genuine fetch failure isn't indistinguishable from 'no warnings' during triage.

Why this is blocked

• 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.
• Possible leaked secret in the diff (generic_secret_assignment) — Remove the secret from the diff, rotate the exposed credential, then re-run the gate.

CI checks failing

• codecov/patch — 33.33% of diff hit (target 99.00%)

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 3 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: 51 registered-repo PR(s), 43 merged, 569 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 51 PR(s), 569 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 is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, TypeScript, JavaScript, Ruby, Go, Kotlin, MDX, Shell
• Official Gittensor activity: 51 PR(s), 569 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

❌ Patch coverage is 33.33333% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 93.57%. Comparing base (ac8414c) to head (bcc5af4).
⚠️ Report is 7 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/queue/processors.ts	33.33%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3909      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.57%   93.57%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         340      340              
  Lines       33516    33518       +2     
  Branches    12262    12263       +1     
==========================================
  Hits        31364    31364              
- Misses       1528     1529       +1     
- Partials      624      625       +1     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/queue/processors.ts	94.47% <33.33%> (-0.07%)	⬇️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.