feat(review): capture bounded raw context in the linked_issue_scope_mismatch fired signal

[kai392]

Summary

• Extend the metadata at calibration: wire linked_issue_scope_mismatch into the shared signal-tracking module (fired + reversal) #8101's recordRuleFired call site (src/queue/processors.ts, the linkedIssueSatisfactionGateMode === "block" && status === "unaddressed" block) with the four bounded raw-context fields the assessment was actually based on: issueText, prTitle, prBody, diff — so Epic: verifiable pre-merge backtest for ORB/AMS deterministic rules #8082's backtest primitives can re-run a changed assessment prompt/logic against the stored corpus, not just validate confidence-floor tweaks.
• Bounds reuse LinkedIssueSatisfactionInput's own constants — MAX_ISSUE_TEXT_CHARS/MAX_BODY_CHARS/MAX_DIFF_CHARS are now exported from src/services/linked-issue-satisfaction.ts (values unchanged) and applied with the exact trim/slice shapes buildLinkedIssueSatisfactionPrompt itself uses, so what's stored is byte-what the assessment saw. No new bound constants, per the issue's requirement.
• All four values were already in scope at the call site (computed for the original LinkedIssueSatisfactionInput construction earlier in the same function) — nothing is re-fetched or re-derived.

Closes #8129

Test plan

• Extended test/unit/linked-issue-satisfaction-run.test.ts: the fired event's metadata carries all four fields (issue title+body composite, exact prTitle, diff equal to buildAiReviewDiff(files) under its bound); an over-limit prBody is stored truncated to exactly MAX_BODY_CHARS (the required truncation branch); a body-less PR stores an empty prBody (the ?? "" arm), never the string null/undefined
• Existing calibration: wire linked_issue_scope_mismatch into the shared signal-tracking module (fired + reversal) #8101 suite (58/58) passes unchanged — toMatchObject({ confidence }) assertions are unaffected by the added fields
• npm run typecheck green
• CI validate

[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 90.29%. Comparing base (c02a277) to head (d89073a).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8132      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.02%   90.29%   -1.73%     
==========================================
  Files         760       99     -661     
  Lines       77394    25751   -51643     
  Branches    23392     4992   -18400     
==========================================
- Hits        71225    23253   -47972     
+ Misses       5061     2233    -2828     
+ Partials     1108      265     -843     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	80.45% <100.00%> (+23.35%)	⬆️
shard-2	30.23% <75.00%> (-24.11%)	⬇️
shard-3	39.99% <75.00%> (-10.34%)	⬇️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/queue/processors.ts	95.76% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/services/linked-issue-satisfaction.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 661 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-23 00:17:21 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 82/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This PR extends the linked_issue_scope_mismatch fired-signal metadata (added in #8101) with four bounded raw-context fields (issueText, prTitle, prBody, diff) so a future backtest can re-run assessment logic against stored history, per #8129. The bounds are correctly reused from linked-issue-satisfaction.ts's own exported constants and applied with the same trim/slice shape buildLinkedIssueSatisfactionPrompt uses, and the two added tests verify the over-limit-body truncation and null-body-to-empty-string arms. The change is narrow, additive (toMatchObject assertions in the existing #8101 suite are unaffected by new keys), requires no schema/migration since metadata is a JSON blob, and closes a linked issue as required.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• The new tests cover the prBody truncation arm and the null-body arm, but never exercise the truncation arm for issueText or diff (both just happen to be under their bounds in the fixtures) — worth adding an over-limit case for at least one of them to lock in the slice bound.
• src/queue/processors.ts:7563 — the multi-line `// calibration: capture bounded raw context (issueText/prTitle/prBody/diff) in linked_issue_scope_mismatch's fired-event metadata #8129: ...` comment block explaining the rationale is fine given this file's existing convention of similar comments, but per general style guidance keep new comments to what's non-obvious (the WHY, not a restatement of the PR description).
• Storing up to ~68KB (6000+2000+60000 char bounds) of raw context per fired signal is a deliberate, bounded design per the PR description, but worth flagging as a storage-growth consideration for the signal_history table if this feature fires frequently across many repos.
• Consider adding one test asserting the issueText or diff field is truncated to its exact MAX_*_CHARS bound (mirroring the existing prBody truncation test) to fully lock in all four bound applications.
• If `recordRuleFired`'s metadata parameter has an explicit TypeScript shape/type elsewhere, confirm it was widened to accept these new string fields rather than relying on structural `Record<string, unknown>` typing.

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	#8129
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	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 97 registered-repo PR(s), 52 merged, 2 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	kai392; Gittensor profile; 97 PR(s), 2 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR extends the recordRuleFired metadata at the exact call site with issueText/prTitle/prBody/diff, bounded using the exported MAX_ISSUE_TEXT_CHARS/MAX_BODY_CHARS/MAX_DIFF_CHARS constants reused from linked-issue-satisfaction.ts rather than redefined, and adds tests verifying all four fields are present plus truncation of an over-limit body.

Review context

• Author: kai392
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 97 PR(s), 2 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 7 meaningful terms. (PR #8135)

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Review top overlaps.
• Then work through the remaining 2 steps 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.