fix(ci): skip the heavy job fan-out for draft pull requests

[JSONbored]

Summary

• validate-code, the 6-way validate-tests shard matrix, validate-tests-merge, and security were running their full 11-job fan-out on every draft PR open and push, identical to a ready PR.
• This directly worsens queue contention on the account's shared GitHub-hosted runner pool (already flagged in this file's own comments as capacity-constrained, not billing-constrained) — confirmed via live workflow-run data showing multi-minute gaps between shard start times under current load (11 workflow runs queued/in-progress at time of investigation, most stuck in queued).
• Each affected job's if: now requires the PR not be a draft; push runs are unaffected (github.event.pull_request is unset there).
• The pull_request trigger now explicitly lists ready_for_review alongside the prior default types — the default list omits it, so without this change, marking a draft ready would silently wait for the next push before CI ran at all.
• This is one half of the draft-PR fix; the other half (stopping the bot's AI review/labels/slop-gate from running on drafts at the app level, and a new opt-in draft-close policy) is tracked separately.

Test plan

• New test/unit/ci-skip-draft-prs.test.ts (6 tests) asserting the trigger types and each job's draft-guard condition
• All existing ci.yml-parsing tests still pass unmodified (21 tests across 6 files)
• Full local gate (npm run test:ci) green

[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 95.61%. Comparing base (8b85ce8) to head (189db3c).
⚠️ Report is 17 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6448   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.61%   95.61%           
=======================================
  Files         598      598           
  Lines       47308    47310    +2     
  Branches    15053    15056    +3     
=======================================
+ Hits        45233    45235    +2     
  Misses       1291     1291           
  Partials      784      784           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	44.10% <ø> (+0.17%)	⬆️
shard-2	36.49% <ø> (-0.41%)	⬇️
shard-3	32.27% <ø> (+0.04%)	⬆️
shard-4	35.20% <ø> (+0.87%)	⬆️
shard-5	30.78% <ø> (-0.67%)	⬇️
shard-6	45.27% <ø> (-0.15%)	⬇️

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

[loopover-orb]

Warning

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-16 08:19:59 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This PR gates the four heavy CI jobs (validate-code, validate-tests, validate-tests-merge, security) with `github.event.pull_request.draft != true` so draft PRs no longer trigger the full 11-job fan-out, and adds `ready_for_review` to the pull_request trigger types so marking a PR ready fires CI immediately instead of waiting for the next push. The null-coalescing logic for push events is correctly reasoned in the comment (`github.event.pull_request` is unset on push, so the property access is null, and `null != true` is true) and is verified by the new test suite parsing the actual YAML. The change is narrowly scoped, well-tested against the real workflow file rather than a fabricated fixture, and the `validate` aggregation job's `needs`/`if: always()` is unchanged so it still correctly reflects skipped-as-success semantics.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• The test file's regression-guard comment (test/unit/ci-skip-draft-prs.test.ts:15-20) claims a security motivation ('farm bot labels/AI review/screenshots for free') not mentioned in the PR description, which focuses solely on queue contention — worth aligning the comment with the actual stated rationale.
• The `validate-tests` and `validate-tests-merge` if-conditions are identical in shape (`.github/workflows/ci.yml:455,636`) and duplicated the draft-guard logic three times across jobs; consider a reusable `needs.changes.outputs.*` style flag or a job-level default if the workflow gains more heavy jobs later.
• Consider confirming whether `security`'s job-level if (`.github/workflows/ci.yml:687`) should also account for `github.event_name == 'push'` for symmetry with the others, or whether that's intentionally push-exempt as before.
• The new test's `it.each` loop (test/unit/ci-skip-draft-prs.test.ts:39) is a nice way to avoid triplicated near-identical test bodies — good pattern to keep for future job additions.

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.

📋 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.

Decision drivers

• ❌ Code review — 2 blockers (1 reviewer)
• ❌ Gate result — Blocking (Repo-configured hard blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
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: 39 registered-repo PR(s), 32 merged, 370 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 39 PR(s), 370 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: clean · value: insufficient-signal

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: 39 PR(s), 370 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Then work through the remaining 2 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://loopover.ai/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