fix(review): cap AI copy blocker text

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• Prevent the public comment from re-exposing blocker text that was intentionally hidden by review.max_findings.blockers display caps.
• The previously-added AI copy block rendered the full pre-truncation blocker set and bypassed the configured public display bound.

Description

• Limit the 📋 Copy for AI agents fenced block to the same truncated blocker list used for the human-facing section (blockersTrunc.shown) and skip the AI block when the cap results in zero shown items (maxFindingsCaps.blockers = 0).
• Update unit tests to assert the AI copy block respects the blocker cap and to cover the zero-cap case (regression tests added/adjusted in test/unit/unified-comment.test.ts).
• Regenerate Cloudflare worker runtime types so the repo’s typegen check (cf-typegen) is up-to-date.
• Files changed: src/review/unified-comment.ts, test/unit/unified-comment.test.ts, and regenerated worker-configuration.d.ts.

Testing

• Ran npx vitest run test/unit/unified-comment.test.ts test/unit/unified-comment-bridge.test.ts and the targeted suites passed (167 tests total).
• Ran npm run cf-typegen:check after regenerating types and the typegen check passed.
• Attempted full gate (npm run test:ci / full npm run test:coverage) in this environment but the global coverage/long-running unrelated suites caused the full coverage gate to fail here; the targeted unit suites and typegen verification above demonstrate the fix and its regression coverage.

---

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: 2026-07-12 23:23:10 UTC}

3 files · 2 blockers · readiness 89/100 · CI failing · blocked

🛑 Suggested Action - Manual Review

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.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

Fix the following blocker(s) from this PR review:

1. No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

2. Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example `Closes #123`) before opening the PR.

CI checks failing

• validate
• validate-code

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 (draft PR; no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 44 registered-repo PR(s), 36 merged, 424 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 44 PR(s), 424 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor — Code changes are accompanied by test evidence.

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: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 44 PR(s), 424 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.
• Mark ready when done.
• 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.

[BETA] Chat with Gittensory

Ask Gittensory a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @gittensory ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @gittensory chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @gittensory mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically -- no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://gittensory.aethereal.dev/docs/gittensory-commands

_{🟩 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

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.67%. Comparing base (09b155e) to head (f364c90).
⚠️ Report is 17 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5492      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   94.71%   94.67%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         556      556              
  Lines       44576    44576              
  Branches    14664    14665       +1     
==========================================
- Hits        42220    42203      -17     
- Misses       1621     1638      +17     
  Partials      735      735              

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.84% <0.00%> (-0.14%)	⬇️
shard-2	35.29% <0.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.00% <0.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
shard-4	31.36% <100.00%> (-0.69%)	⬇️
shard-5	33.12% <0.00%> (+0.39%)	⬆️
shard-6	43.78% <0.00%> (+0.27%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/review/unified-comment.ts	99.58% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[JSONbored]

Closing as a regression, not a fix.

review.max_findings is documented repo-wide as a purely cosmetic display cap — "never removes a blocker from the gate decision" — and the "Copy for AI agents" block already renders from the exact same already-public, already-scrubbed blockers array as the human bullet list. Nothing sensitive or non-public is exposed by leaving it uncapped; unified-comment.ts's own module doc states the renderer is "public-safe-by-construction" with the redactor already applied before either section is built.

This reverses a deliberate, same-day design: 1da48c9f2 (#5387, "add a combined 'Copy for AI agents' block to the PR comment") explicitly built the AI block to carry the full blocker set, with the code comment right at the call site:

The FULL (pre-display-truncation) blocker set, not blockersTrunc.shown — an AI agent benefits from every blocker, not just the human-scannable capped subset shown above. Never gated by verbosity: this is an extension of the blockers themselves (never gated), not decorative detail like Nits.

A matching test asserted this by name ("uses the FULL blocker set, not the display-truncated one, when maxFindingsCaps.blockers is set"). This PR rewrites that exact test to assert the opposite.

Independent of the design question, CI's validate-code job is also failing for real: the committed worker-configuration.d.ts was regenerated against a newer workerd runtime than the repo's pinned toolchain produces, and it's unrelated scope creep anyway since this PR makes no wrangler binding/var changes.

No action needed; flagging for visibility.