fix(mcp): map review preflight status

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• The review-pr composition layer was incorrectly mapping preflight statuses using fail/warn, which does not match the actual preflight contract of ready | needs_work | hold, causing blocking/warning states to be reported as passing.
• This change prevents needs_work or hold preflight results from producing an overall pass when other checks (e.g. slop-risk, pr-text-lint) pass.

Description

• Replace the inline ternary mapping in packages/gittensory-mcp/bin/gittensory-mcp.js with a dedicated preflightSectionStatus helper that maps hold → fail, needs_work → warn, and otherwise pass and wire it into the sections array used by reviewLocalPr.
• Add regression tests in test/unit/mcp-cli-review-pr.test.ts that assert needs_work produces a warn section and hold produces a fail section so the composed overallStatus is correct.
• Keep other section mappings (slop_risk, pr_text_lint) unchanged and preserve the per-check degradation behavior when remote endpoints fail.

Testing

• Ran npx vitest run test/unit/mcp-cli-review-pr.test.ts and all tests in that file passed (10 tests) indicating the new mappings and regressions are covered and green.
• Ran npm run build:mcp and npm run test:mcp-pack to validate the MCP bundle and packaging, both commands succeeded.
• Ran git diff --check to ensure no whitespace/conflict markers and it succeeded.

---

Codex Task

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying with    Cloudflare Workers

The latest updates on your project. Learn more about integrating Git with Workers.

Status	Name	Latest Commit	Preview URL	Updated (UTC)
✅ Deployment successful! View logs	gittensory-ui	846dc79	Commit Preview URL Branch Preview URL	Jul 07 2026, 08:15 AM

[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: 2026-07-07 08:18:05 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI pending · blocked

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

Review summary
This fixes a real bug: the old ternary compared `result.analysis.preflight?.status` against the literal strings "fail"/"warn", but the preflight contract actually returns `ready`/`needs_work`/`hold`, so the comparison could never match and preflight always reported "pass" regardless of its true status. The new `preflightSectionStatus` helper correctly maps `hold`→fail, `needs_work`→warn, and defaults to pass for `ready`, and is wired into the `sections` array exactly as described. The two new regression tests exercise the fixture server with `needs_work` and `hold` preflight statuses and assert both the section status and the resulting `overallStatus`, directly covering the previously-broken path.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• packages/gittensory-mcp/bin/gittensory-mcp.js: `preflightSectionStatus` could use a lookup object (e.g. `{hold:"fail", needs_work:"warn"}[status] ?? "pass"`) to mirror the style of `slopRiskSectionStatus`/`prTextLintSectionStatus`, though the if-chain is equally clear.
• test/unit/mcp-cli-review-pr.test.ts: much of the diff is pure reformatting (wrapping existing `runAsync` calls across multiple lines) unrelated to the fix, which inflates the diff size without functional change.
• No test asserts the `ready` preflight status still maps to "pass" alongside the other checks passing, which would fully round out coverage of the helper's three branches.
• Consider adding a small `ready` → `pass` case test alongside the new `needs_work`/`hold` tests for symmetry, even though it's implicitly covered by the earlier passing-scenario test.
• Revert the incidental Prettier-style reformatting in unrelated test blocks to keep the diff focused on the preflight fix.

Concerns raised — review before merging

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 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	✅ 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	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard 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.
• Explain no-issue PR.
• 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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.68%. Comparing base (b8a1186) to head (846dc79).
⚠️ Report is 18 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3972   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.68%   93.68%           
=======================================
  Files         373      373           
  Lines       34895    34895           
  Branches    12768    12768           
=======================================
  Hits        32692    32692           
  Misses       1584     1584           
  Partials      619      619           

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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