docs(miner): document claim ledger in README (#2291)

[kiannidev]

Summary

• Document the foundation claim ledger in the miner README (openClaimLedger, claimIssue, releaseClaim, listActiveClaims) and note it is local bookkeeping only.
• Add a README contract test so the documented API surface stays in sync.

Closes #2291

Test plan

• test/unit/miner-claim-ledger-readme.test.ts — README API surface
• npm run typecheck
• npm run build --workspace @jsonbored/gittensory-miner

Made with Cursor

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-05 23:11:30 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 62/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This is a documentation-only PR: it adds a paragraph to the miner README documenting the local claim ledger API (openClaimLedger/claimIssue/releaseClaim/listActiveClaims) and adds a README contract test asserting those terms appear in the doc. The documented API surface matches the existing implementation shown in test/unit/miner-claim-ledger.test.ts (claimIssue, listActiveClaims, openClaimLedger, releaseClaim all exist and behave as described), and the 'local bookkeeping only' framing matches the existing source comment cited by the sibling test. The added test is a trivial string-containment check against the README, not functional coverage, but that's appropriate for a docs-sync test and matches the pattern of the prior governor-ledger README paragraph.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• test/unit/miner-claim-ledger-readme.test.ts only asserts substring containment, so it would still pass if the prose became inaccurate elsewhere in the paragraph — consider snapshotting the whole paragraph or asserting order/adjacency for stronger drift protection.
• README.md:31-33 says 'duplicate winners are adjudicated elsewhere via `@​jsonbored/gittensory-engine`' but doesn't link to where that adjudication logic lives (e.g. `isDuplicateClusterWinnerByClaim` referenced in the sibling ledger test) — a pointer would help readers find the actual enforcement code.
• Consider linking the claim-ledger paragraph to `lib/claim-ledger.js` the way other packages sometimes link source files, for easier navigation from the README.
• If the governor-ledger paragraph above it (feat(miner-governor): append-only local event ledger schema + writer #2328) has a matching contract test, keep the two test files consistent in structure/naming for future maintainers.
• 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	✅ Linked	#2291
Related work	⚠️ 1 scoped overlap	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	❌ 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: 1485 registered-repo PR(s), 773 merged, 48 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	kiannidev; Gittensor profile; 1485 PR(s), 48 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: TypeScript, MDX, C++, HTML, Rust
• Official Gittensor activity: 1485 PR(s), 48 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 8 meaningful terms. (issue #2281, issue #2291)

Contributor next steps

• Review top overlaps.
• Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Await review-lane availability.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.
• 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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.28%. Comparing base (a151d8a) to head (1ce677f).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3650   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.28%   93.28%           
=======================================
  Files         314      314           
  Lines       32054    32054           
  Branches    11747    11747           
=======================================
  Hits        29903    29903           
  Misses       1517     1517           
  Partials      634      634           

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[loopover-orb]

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