config: merge the split review: block in .loopover.yml.example

[JSONbored]

Closes #6071. Branched fresh off main (independent of the comment-rendering PR stack — pure config-example reorganization, no source code touched).

Summary

.loopover.yml.example had two top-level review: keys, 546 lines apart — a "live" one (auto_review + ~16 display/behavior toggles) and a second, fully-commented-out one holding everything else, including footer/note/fields (the keys that control PR-comment rendering). Most of the second block's keys were already duplicated in the first (inline_comments, changed_files_summary, effort_score, impact_map, culture_profile, selftune, memory, finding_categories, auto_review itself) — two independently-hand-maintained copies of the same documentation, a classic drift magnet.

• Merged into one contiguous review: section. Genuinely-unique keys from the second block (exclude_paths, path_filters, tone, profile, security_focus, instructions, path_instructions, linkedIssueSatisfaction, pre_merge_checks, enrichment, ai_model, visual, footer, note, fields) moved up into the live block; duplicate keys dropped from the (now-deleted) second copy.
• Fixed the section-3 divider — it labeled itself "settings:" while physically preceding review: — and added a proper section-4 divider ahead of the actual settings: block.
• config/examples/loopover.full.yml resynced to match .loopover.yml.example byte-for-byte from the # WHERE IT LIVES marker onward (the parity test/unit/config-templates.test.ts enforces).
• No parsing-logic changes (packages/loopover-engine/src/focus-manifest.ts untouched) — this is a documentation/example-file reorganization only. Every moved line stays commented exactly as it was; I did not also normalize the two blocks' differing internal comment-indentation conventions, to keep this PR to the structural merge only.

Test plan

• npx vitest run test/unit/config-templates.test.ts — 19/19 pass (byte-parity, zero-warning parse, zero-warning lint, every specifically-checked field still documented, gate/path-instructions/autonomy round-trip tests)
• npm run docs:drift-check, npm run manifest:drift-check — pass (this repo's own live .loopover.yml is untouched and unaffected)
• npx tsc --noEmit clean
• git diff --check clean (no whitespace issues)
• Grepped config/examples/README.md, TEMPLATES.md, CONTRIBUTING.md for stale references to the old section numbering — none found

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Tip

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-15 09:02:30 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 80/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This is a mechanical, verbatim reorganization of `.loopover.yml.example`'s split `review:` blocks into one contiguous section, with the exact same text-for-text move applied to `config/examples/loopover.full.yml` to keep the parity test green. The unique keys retained (`exclude_paths`, `path_filters`, `tone`, etc.) versus the duplicates correctly dropped (`inline_comments`, `changed_files_summary`, `effort_score`, `impact_map`, `culture_profile`, `selftune`, `memory`, `finding_categories`) match the PR description, and both files' diffs are byte-identical to each other as required by `config-templates.test.ts`. No parsing logic is touched, and the moved comment text is copied verbatim rather than reformatted.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• The newly relocated block keeps the old block's `# # key:` triple-space-plus-hash indentation style, which is inconsistent with the surrounding live `review:` block's ` # key:` two-space style (.loopover.yml.example:572-719) — the PR description acknowledges this was left intentionally unnormalized, but it's worth a follow-up pass for readability.
• The section divider was renumbered from `3. GENERIC SETTINGS` to `3. REVIEW OUTPUT` / `4. GENERIC SETTINGS` (.loopover.yml.example:419), but since only a slice of the file is visible in this diff, double-check that no later section header still reads `4.` or `5.` elsewhere in the file, which would now collide.
• Consider a quick grep for `^# [0-9]\.` across both files post-merge to confirm the divider numbering stays sequential and non-duplicated beyond what's shown in this diff.
• PR author also opened the linked issue — Link an issue that was opened by a different contributor, or provide a rationale for why this self-authored issue represents genuine discovery work.
• Diff looks like trivial or whitespace-only churn — Reduce whitespace-only or formatting-only churn and keep the diff focused on substantive changes.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#6071
Related work	⚠️ 3 scoped overlaps	Top overlaps are listed below; lower-confidence bulk is hidden.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 43 registered-repo PR(s), 35 merged, 360 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 43 PR(s), 360 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.
Improvement	ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: low · value: insufficient-signal · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Partially addressed
The PR successfully merges the two review: blocks into one contiguous section, fixes the section-3/4 divider labeling, and mirrors the change into loopover.full.yml, but it explicitly keeps the merged-in keys (exclude_paths, tone, footer, note, fields, etc.) commented out rather than uncommenting them to show their live defaults as the issue explicitly requested ('every value shown is the document

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: 43 PR(s), 360 issue(s).
• Related work: Items reference the same linked issue config: merge the split review: block in .loopover.yml.example #6071. (issue #6071)
• Related work: Open PR work references issue config: merge the split review: block in .loopover.yml.example #6071. (issue #6071)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 7 meaningful terms. (issue #6071, issue #6070)
• Additional title-only matches omitted; title-only overlap does not block.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Then work through the remaining 3 steps in the Signals table above.

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.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

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

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover 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/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 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 LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

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