chore(review): remove dead isIgnoredReviewAuthor wrapper (zero callers, thinly wraps decideReviewEligibility)

[real-venus]

Summary

src/review/review-eligibility.ts's isIgnoredReviewAuthor is a thin boolean wrapper (return !decideReviewEligibility(input).eligible;) around the actively-used decideReviewEligibility (called from src/signals/settings-preview.ts and src/queue/processors.ts). A repo-wide search finds isIgnoredReviewAuthor has zero callers outside its own test -- every real caller uses the richer decideReviewEligibility directly.

Changes

• Removed isIgnoredReviewAuthor from review-eligibility.ts and its dedicated test case + import. Pure deletion; decideReviewEligibility and its tests are untouched.

Confirmation (per the issue)

• Repo-wide search: isIgnoredReviewAuthor had zero real callers (def + one test only).
• No engine twin -- review-eligibility.ts is backend-only, so no parity pair to keep in sync.

Validation

• npm run typecheck -- clean.
• npx vitest run test/unit/review-eligibility.test.ts -- 39 passed (the remaining decideReviewEligibility tests).
• git diff --check clean; rebased onto latest main, mergeable-clean.

Safety

• No secrets/private terms; removing an uncalled convenience wrapper changes no live behavior.

Closes #6169

[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 95.32%. Comparing base (645c3f6) to head (b954075).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6223      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.32%   95.32%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         597      597              
  Lines       47128    47127       -1     
  Branches    15012    15012              
==========================================
- Hits        44926    44925       -1     
  Misses       1477     1477              
  Partials      725      725              

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.95% <ø> (-0.06%)	⬇️
shard-2	36.78% <ø> (+0.14%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.16% <ø> (-0.06%)	⬇️
shard-4	33.99% <ø> (-0.39%)	⬇️
shard-5	31.72% <ø> (+0.12%)	⬆️
shard-6	45.30% <ø> (+0.04%)	⬆️

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

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

[loopover-orb]

Tip

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-15 23:15:19 UTC}

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

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This is a clean, narrowly-scoped deletion of an unused wrapper function `isIgnoredReviewAuthor` and its corresponding test, leaving the actively-used `decideReviewEligibility` untouched. The PR closes a linked issue (#6169), the diff matches the description exactly, and removing an uncalled pure-boolean wrapper cannot change any live behavior since no production code path invoked it.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• The PR description claims a repo-wide search found zero callers, but the diff itself doesn't prove this — worth double-checking no dynamic/string-based invocation exists elsewhere.
• Consider a brief changelog or commit note flagging this as a pure cleanup, since dead-code removals like this can sometimes surprise downstream consumers relying on an unexported-but-imported utility.
• Code changes lack test evidence — Add focused regression tests or explain why existing coverage is sufficient.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#6169
Related work	⚠️ 2 scoped overlaps	Top overlaps are listed below; lower-confidence bulk is hidden.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 139 registered-repo PR(s), 75 merged, 21 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	real-venus; Gittensor profile; 139 PR(s), 21 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.
Improvement	ℹ️ None detected	risk: low · value: none · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff removes isIgnoredReviewAuthor from review-eligibility.ts, its import, and its dedicated test case, exactly matching the issue's deliverables while leaving decideReviewEligibility and its tests intact.

Review context

• Author: real-venus
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 139 PR(s), 21 issue(s).
• Related work: Items reference the same linked issue chore(review): remove unused isIgnoredReviewAuthor wrapper (thin duplicate of the actively-used decideReviewEligibility) #6169. (issue #6169)
• Related work: Open PR work references issue chore(review): remove unused isIgnoredReviewAuthor wrapper (thin duplicate of the actively-used decideReviewEligibility) #6169. (issue #6169)

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Review top overlaps.
• 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://gittensory.aethereal.dev/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

[loopover-orb]

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