feat(enrichment): register docCommentDrift in engine REES_ANALYZER_NAMES

[kiannidev]

Summary

Add docCommentDrift to REES_ANALYZER_NAMES so self-host operators can enable the shipped REES analyzer via REES_ANALYZERS=docCommentDrift.

Issue

Action: Open upstream issue titled feat(enrichment): register docCommentDrift in engine REES_ANALYZER_NAMES and link it here (Fixes #…) before gate review.

Validation

npx vitest run test/unit/enrichment-wire.test.ts -t "docCommentDrift|accepts every REES"

Test plan

• REES_ANALYZERS=docCommentDrift resolves successfully
• Full allowlist acceptance test includes docCommentDrift

[gittensory-orb]

Tip

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

✅ Gittensory review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-06-30 17:45:16 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 48/100 · CI green · unknown

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
The change correctly registers `docCommentDrift` in the engine-side REES analyzer allowlist, so `REES_ANALYZERS=docCommentDrift` now resolves instead of being treated as invalid. The added focused test covers the new single-analyzer path, and the existing full-list acceptance test was updated consistently. I do not see a reachable correctness break in the provided post-change files.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• nit: test/unit/enrichment-wire.test.ts:500 keeps a second hand-maintained copy of the full analyzer registry string, so future analyzer additions still require updating both the production list and this duplicated literal.
• test/unit/enrichment-wire.test.ts:500 could import `REES_ANALYZER_NAMES` and build the full-list test from `REES_ANALYZER_NAMES.join(",")`, then assert against `REES_ANALYZER_NAMES`, so the test verifies parser acceptance without creating another registry to maintain.
• Readiness score is below the configured threshold — Use the readiness panel as advisory maintainer context; the score does not block this PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
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:XS; no linked issue context).
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	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

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 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)
• Related work: Items reference the same linked issue feat(enrichment): Full-file / near-verbatim duplication scan #1520. (issue #1520, PR #1867)
• Additional title-only matches omitted; title-only overlap does not block.

Contributor next steps

• Explain no-issue PR.
• 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.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.
• 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