fix(signals): count C#/Swift/Groovy source as code files

[jeffrey701]

Summary

isCodeFile recognized the JVM trio (kt/scala/java) plus go/rust/python, but not cs/swift/groovy — even though isTestPath already recognizes their SomethingTest(s)/Spec test files. So a C#/Swift/Groovy source file was classified as neither test nor code by the local scorer, understating real source effort while its test counterpart still counted as a test.

Adds cs/swift/groovy to both isCodeFile copies (local-branch.ts + engine.ts, kept in sync).

Validation

• npx vitest run test/unit/local-branch-file-classifiers.test.ts test/unit/local-branch.test.ts — green (source-as-code + test-still-excluded)
• npm run typecheck — clean

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 96.12%. Comparing base (562f5dd) to head (117b325).
⚠️ Report is 11 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2776   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.12%   96.12%           
=======================================
  Files         248      248           
  Lines       27548    27550    +2     
  Branches    10007    10007           
=======================================
+ Hits        26480    26483    +3     
  Misses        443      443           
+ Partials      625      624    -1     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/signals/engine.ts	97.35% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/signals/local-branch.ts	97.21% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-03 19:43:59 UTC}

6 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 73/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
The diff extends the code-file classifiers in both signal paths and the MCP preview scripts so `.cs`, `.swift`, and `.groovy` source files contribute to source lines while PascalCase test files stay out of source. The ordering remains correct because each code classifier still checks `isTestFile`/`is_test_file` before assigning source status, so the visible change is safe to proceed. The main remaining gap is regression coverage around Groovy test-file exclusion and the standalone preview-script classifiers.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• nit: test/unit/local-branch-file-classifiers.test.ts:138 adds C#/Swift test-exclusion cases but not a Groovy `Spec`/`Test` case, leaving one newly recognized extension without a regression test on the test-file side.
• nit: packages/gittensory-mcp/scripts/gittensor-score-preview.py:15 and packages/gittensory-mcp/scripts/gittensor-score-preview.mjs:11 duplicate the suffix-extension list separately from the signal classifiers, so future classifier updates still have to be kept in sync manually.
• Add a false-case fixture such as `src/main/groovy/PipelineSpec.groovy` or `src/test/groovy/PipelineTest.groovy` beside the new C#/Swift exclusions in test/unit/local-branch-file-classifiers.test.ts:138.
• Add a small regression test or fixture for packages/gittensory-mcp/scripts/gittensor-score-preview.py:160 and packages/gittensory-mcp/scripts/gittensor-score-preview.mjs:15 covering source-vs-test classification for the three added extensions.
• 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	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (no linked issue context).
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: 49 registered-repo PR(s), 24 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	jeffrey701; Gittensor profile; 49 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

Review context

• Author: jeffrey701
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: Clojure, TypeScript
• Official Gittensor activity: 49 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Explain no-issue PR.
• Await review-lane availability.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.

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

[loopover-orb]

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