fix(selfhost): recognize experimental: as a valid top-level manifest field

[JSONbored]

Summary

#5030 (the gittensor subnet plugin) added a real, actively-parsed experimental: top-level manifest block, but never updated src/selfhost/config-lint.ts's TOP_LEVEL_FIELDS allowlist — the same class of bug already fixed once in this exact file for repoDocGeneration (#3364). All 3 production self-host repo configs declare experimental: { gittensor: true } today; running npm run selfhost:config-lint against any of them produces a false "unknown top-level field" warning.

Scope

src/selfhost/config-lint.ts (one line), test/unit/selfhost-config-lint.test.ts (regression test mirroring the #3364 precedent).

Validation

• npm run typecheck — clean
• npx vitest run test/unit/selfhost-config-lint.test.ts test/unit/gittensory-config-lint-script.test.ts — 28/28
• Scoped coverage on config-lint.ts: 100% statements/branches/functions/lines
• npm run docs:drift-check — clean
• Verified by re-running the CLI against a live production config snapshot after this fix — no false positive on experimental

Closes #5281

[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 94.37%. Comparing base (b7a410d) to head (608ff35).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5307   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.37%   94.37%           
=======================================
  Files         474      474           
  Lines       40128    40128           
  Branches    14631    14631           
=======================================
  Hits        37869    37869           
  Misses       1583     1583           
  Partials      676      676           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	46.28% <ø> (-0.28%)	⬇️
shard-2	34.74% <ø> (+0.06%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.05% <ø> (-0.04%)	⬇️
shard-4	31.97% <ø> (-0.11%)	⬇️
shard-5	33.45% <ø> (-0.15%)	⬇️
shard-6	45.07% <ø> (+0.23%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/selfhost/config-lint.ts	100.00% <ø> (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]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-12 13:49:42 UTC}

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

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• Touches a guarded path — held for manual review: This PR changes guardrail-protected path(s): src/selfhost/config-lint.ts (matched src/selfhost/**).

Review summary
This is a one-line allowlist fix adding "experimental" to TOP_LEVEL_FIELDS in src/selfhost/config-lint.ts, mirroring the exact precedent set for repoDocGeneration in #3364, with a regression test that verifies lintManifestText no longer flags a standalone experimental: block as unknown. The fix is correctly traced to source: the array is the sole gatekeeper checked by unknownTopLevelWarnings and recognizedFieldsFor, so adding the string there directly resolves the false-positive warning described in the linked issue #5281. The change closes an eligible open issue, is narrowly scoped to the exact defect, and includes a real (non-fabricated) test exercising the actual code path.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• The regression test's inline comment is quite long (4+ lines) compared to the terser style used for the adjacent repoDocGeneration regression test in the same file — consider trimming it for consistency.
• Consider whether other nested fields under experimental (beyond gittensor) should eventually get their own validation, though that's out of scope for this narrow fix.
• 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.
• 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	#5281
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	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 44 registered-repo PR(s), 36 merged, 476 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 44 PR(s), 476 issue(s).
Gate result	⚠️ Not blocking	Advisory; not blocking this PR.
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor — Code changes are accompanied by test evidence.

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: 44 PR(s), 476 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• 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.

[BETA] Chat with Gittensory

Ask Gittensory a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @gittensory ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @gittensory chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @gittensory 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/gittensory-commands

_{🟩 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