feat(enrichment): forward PR body and linked-issue envelope to REES

[kiannidev]

Summary

• Forward PR body from runAiReviewForAdvisory through buildReviewEnrichment into the REES POST
• Resolve the primary linked issue from the engine cache (getIssue) and send a compact linkedIssue envelope
• Add resolveEnrichmentLinkedIssue() with fail-safe { number } fallback when the issue row is missing

Fixes #1851

Why

REES history already accepts body and linkedIssue, but the engine never sent them — so linked-issue parsing and requirement-alignment degraded silently.

Validation

npx vitest run test/unit/enrichment-wire.test.ts test/unit/enrichment-wiring.test.ts

Test plan

• REES POST includes body when the PR has one
• REES POST includes linkedIssue when the engine has a cached issue row
• Missing issue cache degrades to { number } only
• Processor wiring test covers the full advisory → enrichment path

Made with Cursor

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-06-30 19:05:31 UTC}

4 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 55/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• Touches a guarded path — held for manual review

Review summary
The change correctly threads the PR body and a compact linked-issue envelope into the REES enrichment request, with a fail-safe number-only fallback when the cached issue row is absent. The new unit coverage exercises the direct POST payload, cached issue resolution, and the advisory-to-enrichment path, so the visible behavior matches the PR description. The notable rough edge is that linked-issue resolution now happens before the enrichment flag/allowlist check, adding unnecessary DB work on disabled paths.

Nits — 8 non-blocking

• nit: src/queue/processors.ts:3811 resolves the linked issue before `isEnrichmentEnabled(env) && convergedRepoAllowed`, so disabled or non-allowlisted enrichment still performs a DB lookup despite the surrounding flag-off comments promising no enrichment branch/work.
• nit: src/review/enrichment-wire.ts:151 forwards the cached issue body without a local size cap in this helper; the repository layer likely already bounds stored bodies, but keeping the envelope bounded here would make the REES contract self-contained.
• Move `resolveEnrichmentLinkedIssue(...)` inside the `isEnrichmentEnabled(env) && convergedRepoAllowed` branch in src/queue/processors.ts so flag-off reviews avoid the extra cache read.
• Consider applying the same explicit body length discipline used by stored GitHub bodies when constructing `linkedIssue.body` in src/review/enrichment-wire.ts.
• Add a small negative processor test in test/unit/enrichment-wiring.test.ts that enrichment disabled does not call the issue cache resolver, preserving the no-work flag-off contract.
• 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.
• Readiness score is below the configured threshold — Use the readiness panel as advisory maintainer context; the score does not block this PR.
• Touches a guarded path — held for manual review — A maintainer must review and merge this change.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#1851
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 (size label size:M; 1 linked issue).
Validation posture	❌ 5/25	Preflight is holding this PR; address the blocker before review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 3148 registered-repo PR(s), 1801 merged, 53 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	kiannidev; Gittensor profile; 3148 PR(s), 53 issue(s).
Gate result	⚠️ Not blocking	Advisory; not blocking this PR.

Review context

• Author: kiannidev
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 3148 PR(s), 53 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 7 meaningful terms. (PR #1864)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 5 meaningful terms. (PR #1882)
• Related work: Items reference the same linked issue feat(enrichment): Churn-hotspot + bug-density scorer #1513. (issue #1513, PR #1882)
• Additional title-only matches omitted; title-only overlap does not block.

Contributor next steps

• Review top overlaps.
• Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Fix the blocker.
• Triage stale or unlinked PRs.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.
• Check active issues and PRs before submitting.

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.

_{🟩 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

[JSONbored]

Please fix this and resubmit once fixed:

The notable rough edge is that linked-issue resolution now happens before the enrichment flag/allowlist check, adding unnecessary DB work on disabled paths.