fix(engine): correct mergeReadinessGateMode doc comment's sub-gate count

[galuis116]

Summary

• GateCheckPolicy.mergeReadinessGateMode's doc comment (packages/loopover-engine/src/advisory/gate-advisory.ts) claimed the merge-readiness composite (feat(github-app): merge-readiness aggregate gate #551) overrides four sub-gates when set: linked-issue, duplicate, quality/readiness, and slop. applyMergeReadinessGate (same file) only ever escalates three — linked-issue, duplicate, slop. Quality/readiness findings come from buildQualityGateWarning, which can only ever produce an advisory warnings entry, never a blockers entry, regardless of any gate mode — so it always stays advisory-only.
• Corrected the doc comment to list the three sub-gates that are actually escalated and added a sentence explaining why quality/readiness is deliberately excluded from the composite.
• src/rules/advisory.ts (the hand-duplicated host twin of the engine file, per scripts/check-engine-parity.ts's GATE_DECISION_TWIN_PAIR) carried the identical incorrect claim on its own mergeReadinessGateMode field — its own applyMergeReadinessGate function a few lines below already states "Readiness/quality is intentionally excluded" in a code comment, directly contradicting the field's doc comment above it. Mirrored the same correction there.
• Checked the twin field in src/types.ts (mergeReadinessGateMode: GateRuleMode, line 881) — its doc comment is terse ("Merge-readiness gate (#merge-readiness). off/advisory/block. No min-score. Default off.") but doesn't make the same incorrect claim, so it needed no change.
• Added a regression test in test/unit/gate-check-policy.test.ts's describe("merge-readiness composite gate (#551)", ...) block asserting slop escalates into a hard blocker under mergeReadinessGateMode: "block" — the block already had dedicated tests for linked-issue and duplicate escalation (and for quality/readiness staying advisory-only), but not slop.

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format.
• 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 #7242

Validation

• git diff --check — clean.
• npm run actionlint — clean.
• npm run typecheck — the whole-repo tsc --noEmit reliably OOMs on this shared, memory-constrained sandbox regardless of diff size (documented pattern from prior PRs in this repo's history). Verified instead with: (1) tsc --noEmit -p packages/loopover-engine/tsconfig.json — the whole loopover-engine workspace package (small enough to avoid the OOM), clean; (2) a standalone scoped tsc --noEmit against src/rules/advisory.ts and the changed test files using this project's exact root tsconfig.json compiler options (--strict --exactOptionalPropertyTypes --noUncheckedIndexedAccess --noImplicitOverride --noFallthroughCasesInSwitch --forceConsistentCasingInFileNames), clean.
• npx vitest run test/unit/gate-check-policy.test.ts test/unit/check-engine-parity-script.test.ts — 155/155 passing, including the new slop-escalation regression test and the full engine-parity suite.
• Comment-only change to both non-test files; the test file addition is fully covered by the new test itself. packages/loopover-engine/**, src/rules/**, and test/** don't add any new logic paths — no coverage delta beyond the new test's own assertions.
• npm run test:workers / npm run build:mcp / npm run test:mcp-pack / npm run ui:openapi:check (not applicable — no Worker route, MCP, UI, or OpenAPI surface changed)
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate (no dependency changes)

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• The whole-repo npm run typecheck OOMs on this specific sandbox under current memory pressure regardless of diff size; the two scoped tsc --noEmit checks above (full package + exact-flags scoped check) are the local proxy, and CI's isolated runner performs the real whole-repo tsc --noEmit.
• A first push of this PR (from a branch touching only the packages/loopover-engine side) was closed by CI: scripts/check-engine-parity.ts's checkGateDecisionVersionBump tripwire (test/unit/check-engine-parity-script.test.ts) requires a single-sided edit to either of the GATE_DECISION_TWIN_PAIR files (src/rules/advisory.ts / packages/loopover-engine/src/advisory/gate-advisory.ts) to be matched by an edit to the other twin, or a packages/loopover-engine/package.json version bump — my scoped local verification only ran the engine-package tsc build and the directly-relevant unit test file, and didn't include this repo-wide drift-tripwire test, so it missed the failure CI's full suite caught. Root-caused and fixed by mirroring the same doc-comment correction into src/rules/advisory.ts (a genuine fix, not a workaround — that file had the identical incorrect claim), then re-verified via check-engine-parity-script.test.ts's full 38-test suite locally — clean.

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. (N/A — doc-comment fix + a pure gate-evaluation unit test; no auth/cookie/CORS/session changes.)
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed. (N/A — no route, schema, or MCP behavior changed; this is a comment correction plus test coverage for existing, unchanged runtime behavior.)
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks. (N/A — no UI changes.)
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots. (N/A — no UI changes.)
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

[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 93.81%. Comparing base (2372739) to head (3224c96).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7288   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.81%   93.81%           
=======================================
  Files         704      704           
  Lines       69462    69462           
  Branches    18896    18896           
=======================================
  Hits        65167    65167           
  Misses       3302     3302           
  Partials      993      993           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.61% <ø> (ø)
shard-2	37.34% <ø> (ø)
shard-3	33.18% <ø> (+0.13%)	⬆️
shard-4	33.74% <ø> (-0.57%)	⬇️
shard-5	32.89% <ø> (+0.70%)	⬆️
shard-6	45.49% <ø> (-0.30%)	⬇️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...ages/loopover-engine/src/advisory/gate-advisory.ts	98.75% <ø> (ø)
src/rules/advisory.ts	97.77% <ø> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-19 12:52:33 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 88/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This is a pure doc-comment correction: the mergeReadinessGateMode field's comment incorrectly claimed the composite gate overrides four sub-gates (including quality/readiness), when applyMergeReadinessGate only ever escalates three (linked-issue, duplicate, slop) — quality/readiness is sourced from buildQualityGateWarning, which per the PR description can only ever populate warnings, never blockers. The fix is mirrored correctly across both the engine file and its hand-duplicated host twin in src/rules/advisory.ts, keeping them in sync per the stated parity convention. A regression test is added for slop escalation, closing a previously untested sub-gate combination in the same describe block.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• packages/loopover-engine/src/advisory/gate-advisory.ts:72 and src/rules/advisory.ts:72 still use 'Master' to describe the composite gate — consider 'primary' or 'top-level' for more neutral terminology.
• The new test's comment in test/unit/gate-check-policy.test.ts explains the describe block's overall coverage rather than the specific assertion — fine, but slightly unusual for a per-test comment.
• Consider a lint/parity check that fails when the two hand-duplicated doc comments in gate-advisory.ts and advisory.ts drift, similar to check-engine-parity.ts, to prevent this exact class of doc/behavior mismatch recurring.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#7242
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High 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: 1953 registered-repo PR(s), 1282 merged, 51 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	galuis116; Gittensor profile; 1953 PR(s), 51 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR corrects the stale doc comment on mergeReadinessGateMode to list only the three actually-escalated sub-gates (linked-issue, duplicate, slop) and explicitly states quality/readiness remains advisory-only, matching applyMergeReadinessGate's real behavior; it also adds the requested regression test for slop escalation without altering the function's behavior.

Review context

• Author: galuis116
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: JavaScript, Python, Dart, TypeScript, HTML, MDX, Rust, C++
• Official Gittensor activity: 1953 PR(s), 51 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Then work through the remaining 1 step in the Signals table above.

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.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

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

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 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 LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

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