fix: validate maintenance PRs via standard repo checks

[osolmaz]

Summary

• keep dependency/tooling/docs/lockfile maintenance PRs on the existing feature path
• let the feature-validation step treat normal repo review and CI as meaningful validation for that maintenance scope
• add a regression test so this stays in the existing graph shape without a new flow node

Validation

• pnpm run build:test && node --test dist-test/test/pr-triage-example.test.js
• pnpm exec tsx -e "import('./examples/flows/pr-triage/pr-triage.flow.ts').then(() => console.log('ok'))"
• pnpm run check:docs
• pnpm run check

Live check

• reran PR triage on chore(deps-dev): bump the development group across 1 directory with 7 updates #177
• the updated flow now records validation_status: "standard_checks_sufficient" and proceeds into review instead of escalating immediately from feature validation

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: ae645cb5d6

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Reset section tracking at each diff hunk boundary

The parser keeps currentTopLevelKey across @@ hunk boundaries, so a patch that first edits devDependencies and then edits an unrelated top-level scalar in a later hunk can still be treated as devDependencies-only. In that case packageJsonPatchIsMaintenanceOnly returns true, and supportsStandardChecksValidation can route a non-maintenance PR to standard_checks_sufficient instead of escalation.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Accept full pnpm block edits as maintenance changes

The maintenance allowlist only matches the opening line "pnpm": {, but real pnpm config updates also change nested lines and closing braces, which immediately hit return false. That means pnpm-only tooling maintenance PRs still fail this check and get escalated as unvalidated, despite the new feature-path behavior intended for maintenance scope.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[osolmaz]

Landed via temp rebase onto main.

• Gate: validation completed for this repo's change scope
• Land commit: 47ce894
• Merge commit: 2475a3f

Thanks @osolmaz!