docs(contributing): fix stale coverage figure and false no-issue exemption

[JSONbored]

Closes #3912

Summary

• CONTRIBUTING.md still quoted ~97% patch coverage in two spots while AGENTS.md and the PR template already correctly say 99% — fixed both to match the real codecov/patch threshold.
• Several docs implied a linked issue was optional for a PR ("a PR with no linked issue is fine", "explain why an issue is not needed", a no-issue-rationale accepted by the PR-text scoring rubric). That's not the actual rule: every contributor PR needs a linked, currently open issue, with no exemption. Reworded CONTRIBUTING.md, the PR template checkbox, and both files in the contributing-to-gittensory skill accordingly, and made the gate-disposition table explicitly list "issue is closed" as a disqualifying condition next to owner-assigned/maintainer-only.
• Kept the legitimate anti-farming point in CONTRIBUTING.md (filing your own issue and then fixing it isn't farming; using alt/sock-puppet accounts to manufacture one is) but dropped the false "no issue is fine" framing next to it.
• Disclosed the 2-open-PR contributor cap in CONTRIBUTING.md and in AGENTS.md's "five things you must not get wrong" list — it's an enforced rule that wasn't written down anywhere a contributor or an AI agent following AGENTS.md would see it.
• Did a repo-wide grep for the same "97%" and "no issue is fine"/"explain why" patterns beyond the files touched here; found no further occurrences.

This is a docs-only change — no src/** files touched, so codecov/patch doesn't apply. Checked package.json and scripts/ for a docs-lint/drift check and ran the one that exists (npm run docs:drift-check); it doesn't cover these particular files (it cross-checks feature flags/commands/gate-mode fields against UI docs routes) but it passed.

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves (Closes #3912) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage — not applicable, no src/** changes (docs-only)
• npm run test:workers
• npm run build:mcp
• npm run test:mcp-pack
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npm run ui:lint
• npm run ui:typecheck
• npm run ui:build
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries — not applicable, docs-only

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• This is a docs-only change (CONTRIBUTING.md, AGENTS.md, .github/pull_request_template.md, .claude/skills/contributing-to-gittensory/*.md) with no src/**, test/**, or build-config changes, so the code-focused checks (coverage, workers, mcp pack/build, ui lint/typecheck/build, openapi) don't apply. Ran npm run typecheck (clean) and git diff --check (clean) to rule out any accidental syntax breakage, plus npm run docs:drift-check, the repo's one docs-validation script (it checks a different surface — feature flags/commands/gate-modes vs UI docs routes — but it passed).

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests. — not applicable, docs-only
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed. — not applicable, docs-only
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks. — not applicable, no UI changes
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots arranged as organized, captioned, clickable thumbnails. — not applicable, no visible UI changes
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

UI Evidence

Not applicable — this PR only changes markdown documentation and skill files, no UI surface.

Notes

• Left the committed root .gittensory.yml's linkedIssuePolicy: preferred value untouched — it's a non-representative example file by design, and the skill docs now explicitly call that out so an AI agent following them doesn't mistake the example for the live rule.

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Tip

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

✅ Gittensory review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-07 06:14:33 UTC}

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

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This is a docs-only correction PR that fixes the stale 97% patch-coverage figure to 99% in CONTRIBUTING.md (matching AGENTS.md and the PR template), and removes the inaccurate "no linked issue is fine" / "explain why an issue isn't needed" language across CONTRIBUTING.md, the PR template, and both contributing-to-gittensory skill files, replacing it with the actual always-required-open-issue rule. It also discloses a previously-undocumented 2-open-PR contributor cap in CONTRIBUTING.md and AGENTS.md, and adds "issue is closed" to the gate's disqualifying-condition table in reference.md. The changes are internally consistent (99% now matches everywhere, the linkedIssuePolicy:preferred caveat is explicitly reconciled with the new stricter rule) and CI is green; no src/** files are touched so no coverage obligation applies.

Nits — 7 non-blocking

• CONTRIBUTING.md's reworded "Don't ask for or chase reviews" paragraph (bot comment on auto-merge/auto-close vs. "gate posts its own status") is a content change not mentioned in the PR description or tied to issue docs(contributing): stale 97% coverage figure and false no-issue exemption in CONTRIBUTING.md/skill docs #3912's stated scope (stale coverage % and false no-issue exemption) — confirm it belongs in this PR or split it out.
• The 2-open-PR-cap disclosure, while useful, is likewise outside the literal scope of issue docs(contributing): stale 97% coverage figure and false no-issue exemption in CONTRIBUTING.md/skill docs #3912's title; worth a one-line note in the PR description tying it back to the issue or a follow-up.
• reference.md's new hard-rule wording ("issue is closed / not open") is a factual claim about the gate's disposition logic in src/settings/agent-actions.ts, which isn't part of this diff — can't verify against the actual source here, so confirm it matches current engine behavior.
• CONTRIBUTING.md's full post-change content wasn't available to cross-check for other stale 97% mentions outside the two hunks shown; the PR description says a repo-wide grep found none, which is reasonable but unverified in this review.
• Add a short line in the PR description explicitly linking the bot-comment wording change and the 2-open-PR cap disclosure to docs(contributing): stale 97% coverage figure and false no-issue exemption in CONTRIBUTING.md/skill docs #3912, or note they're being folded in as related doc-accuracy fixes discovered during the same pass.
• 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.
• Diff looks like trivial or whitespace-only churn — Reduce whitespace-only or formatting-only churn and keep the diff focused on substantive changes.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#3912
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: 51 registered-repo PR(s), 43 merged, 343 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 51 PR(s), 343 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

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: Python, TypeScript, JavaScript, Ruby, Go, Kotlin, MDX, Shell
• Official Gittensor activity: 51 PR(s), 343 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.

_{🟩 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.