fix(config): preserve explicit review overrides (null/non-mapping) when merging private layers

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• The private-config merge special-cased review and treated review: null or other non-mapping values as if the key were absent, which allowed a lower-priority shared review block to survive a higher-priority explicit clear/replace signal.
• This could expose shared review output (e.g. custom footer text) on a repo where an operator intended to opt out at a higher-priority layer.

Description

• Change combineConfigLayersWithMeta to detect the presence of the top-level review key and preserve its explicit override (including null and non-mapping values) when folding layers, by adding hasReviewKey and using it when iterating layers.
• Keep sharedConfigSource provenance only when the shared layer actually contributes a mapping-shaped review (use extractReviewMapping to confirm contribution).
• Add two regression unit tests in test/unit/private-config.test.ts to assert that review: null clears an inherited shared review block and that a non-mapping review (e.g. false) replaces/blocks the shared review while emitting the expected warning.
• Files modified: src/selfhost/private-config.ts and test/unit/private-config.test.ts.

Testing

• Ran the focused unit suite: npx vitest run test/unit/private-config.test.ts, and the updated tests passed (62 tests passed).
• Ran git diff --check which reported no whitespace/conflict issues.
• Ran npm run typecheck which failed due to unrelated existing syntax errors in src/queue/processors.ts outside the changed files, not introduced by this change.
• Ran a targeted coverage run npm run test:coverage -- --run test/unit/private-config.test.ts where tests passed but coverage remapping failed with TypeError: jsTokens is not a function (coverage toolchain remap issue, unrelated to logic change); npm audit --audit-level=moderate hit a registry 403 Forbidden during the run.

---

Codex Task

[superagent-security]

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.65%. Comparing base (95d2113) to head (dbf9bc6).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4076   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.65%   93.65%           
=======================================
  Files         384      384           
  Lines       35865    35866    +1     
  Branches    13160    13160           
=======================================
+ Hits        33589    33590    +1     
  Misses       1618     1618           
  Partials      658      658           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/selfhost/private-config.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-08 03:12:40 UTC}

2 files · 2 blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ 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.

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	No AI review summary
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, 509 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 51 PR(s), 509 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), 509 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