fix(review): skip additional binary extensions in full-file grounding

[jimcody1995]

Summary

• Extend SKIP_EXT in review-grounding.ts so fetchFullFileContents skips .avif, .bmp, .heic, and .tgz paths (alongside existing png/webp/pdf/etc.).
• Test records getFileContent calls and asserts binary paths are never requested — not merely absent from a sparse fetcher map (the fix(review): skip additional binary extensions in full-file grounding #3383 review blocker).

Scope

• Conventional Commit title format.
• Focused — review grounding + unit tests only.
• Follows CONTRIBUTING.md.
• Supersedes closed fix(review): skip additional binary extensions in full-file grounding #3383 with a proven skip test.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run test:ci on Node 22
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate — 0 vulnerabilities
• Unit test asserts reads excludes all binary paths before fetch

Safety

• No secrets, auth, or UI changes.
• N/A for UI Evidence.

UI Evidence

N/A — backend review grounding only.

Notes

Conflict avoidance: Touches only src/review/review-grounding.ts and test/unit/review-grounding.test.ts. Zero overlap with open PRs (#3381 engine, #3380 enrichment, #3379 selfhost config-lint, #3378 dependency-scan tests, #3314 miner, #3373/#3304 focus-manifest, #3372/#3304 test-evidence, #3305 enrichment-wire, #3361 enrichment).

Made with Cursor

[superagent-security]

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

[gittensory-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-05 06:23:37 UTC}

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

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This focused change extends the full-file grounding skip list for additional binary/archive extensions and updates the unit test to prove those paths are filtered before the fetcher is called. The production path in `fetchFullFileContents` filters candidates with `SKIP_EXT` before sorting and before `getFileContent`, and the new `reads` assertion exercises that real path rather than relying on sparse fetcher results. I do not see a reachable correctness defect in the visible diff.

Nits — 2 non-blocking

• nit: `test/unit/review-grounding.test.ts:184` already proves the exact fetch list with `expect(reads).toEqual(["src/a.ts", "README.md"])`, so the subsequent per-binary `not.toContain` loop is useful documentation but logically redundant.
• `test/unit/review-grounding.test.ts:168` could include an uppercase extension case such as `assets/photo.AVIF` to lock in the intended `/i` behavior for the expanded binary list.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#3383
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 (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	❌ 5/25	Preflight is holding this PR: the review lane is unavailable, so it is not ready for automated review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 58 registered-repo PR(s), 31 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	jimcody1995; Gittensor profile; 58 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

Review context

• Author: jimcody1995
• 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: 58 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Await review-lane availability.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.46%. Comparing base (4fb8692) to head (c407833).
⚠️ Report is 13 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3404   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.46%   93.46%           
=======================================
  Files         287      287           
  Lines       30763    30763           
  Branches    11210    11210           
=======================================
  Hits        28752    28752           
  Misses       1355     1355           
  Partials      656      656           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/review/review-grounding.ts	92.85% <100.00%> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[gittensory-orb]

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