fix(settings): restore draftPrClosePolicy after it was dropped by the autonomy config-as-code PR

[JSONbored]

Summary

• PR fix(settings): give loopover its own autonomy config-as-code #6468's autonomy config-as-code change replaced the same settings: block section in both .loopover.yml and its bundled fallback manifest, silently dropping this repo's own draftPrClosePolicy: close line in the process — the feature (feat(review): add an opt-in draft-PR close policy to stop bot-review farming #6454, merged) has been fully live in code since, just disabled for loopover's own repo because nothing enabled it.
• Re-adds draftPrClosePolicy: close alongside (not replacing) the autonomy: block, in both the committed .loopover.yml and its bundled byte-identical twin.

Found while investigating the repository_settings/config-as-code interaction as part of a broader cleanup pass (see sibling PRs).

Validation

• npm run manifest:drift-check
• Relevant manifest/focus-config tests 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 95.56%. Comparing base (07abff8) to head (530ecdc).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6496   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.56%   95.56%           
=======================================
  Files         589      589           
  Lines       47121    47121           
  Branches    14989    14989           
=======================================
  Hits        45032    45032           
  Misses       1297     1297           
  Partials      792      792           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.89% <ø> (-0.19%)	⬇️
shard-2	37.10% <ø> (+0.39%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.31% <ø> (-0.04%)	⬇️
shard-4	34.41% <ø> (-0.83%)	⬇️
shard-5	31.40% <ø> (+0.41%)	⬆️
shard-6	45.66% <ø> (+0.28%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/config/loopover-repo-focus-manifest.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-16 11:33:36 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · CI failing · blocked

🛑 Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This is a minimal one-line-per-file restoration of `draftPrClosePolicy: close` under the `settings:` block in both `.loopover.yml` and its bundled twin in `loopover-repo-focus-manifest.ts`, re-adding a field that PR #6468 silently dropped. Both files remain byte-identical to each other as required by the existing convention noted in the file header, and the diff is narrowly scoped to exactly the described fix with no unrelated changes.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• No test-path changes accompany this edit; if `manifest:drift-check` or a focus-manifest snapshot test asserts on full YAML content, confirm it was actually re-run rather than relying on the PR checklist claim.
• The PR is a self-referential repo-config fix (not a contributor code change against an open issue), so the usual 'must close an eligible open issue' bar doesn't cleanly apply here — worth a maintainer note confirming this class of fix is exempt.
• Consider adding a lightweight round-trip test that parses `.loopover.yml` and asserts `draftPrClosePolicy` and `reviewEvasionProtection` are both present, to catch this exact class of accidental-drop regression in future config edits.
• If not already enforced, wire `manifest:drift-check` into CI directly so future edits to one of the two byte-identical files can't silently diverge from the other.
• Code changes lack test evidence — Add focused regression tests or explain why existing coverage is sufficient.

Why this is blocked

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

📋 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.

CI checks failing

• validate
• validate-tests (2)
• validate-tests (5)
• validate-tests (6)
• validate-code

Decision drivers

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

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ No-issue rationale	PR body explains why no issue is linked.
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: 33 registered-repo PR(s), 26 merged, 326 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 33 PR(s), 326 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ None detected	risk: low · value: none

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: 33 PR(s), 326 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.

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