feat(api): surface computeRuleGateEval's per-(project, ruleCode) rows

[hurryup52]

Summary

• computeRuleGateEval (src/review/rule-gate-eval.ts) is the finer-grained "which rule is broken on which repo" sibling of computeBlendedRuleGateEval, but had zero consumers outside its own unit test. Adds GET /v1/internal/rule-gate-eval so an operator can actually reach the per-(project, ruleCode) breakdown.

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 #8906.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint — not run (no workflow files touched).
• npm run typecheck — clean.
• npm run test:coverage locally — ran the full suite; see notes below.
• 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 — not run; this change touches only src/api/routes.ts (a backend route) and a backend integration test, no UI/worker/MCP/OpenAPI-spec surface (confirmed no /v1/internal/* route appears in src/openapi/spec.ts — internal routes aren't documented there, matching the existing sibling routes this PR mirrors).
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate — no new dependencies added.
• New behavior has tests for the new branches (?days= present/absent, per-project vs. pooled response shape, 401 without the bearer token).

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• UI/worker/MCP/OpenAPI checks skipped: this PR's diff is src/api/routes.ts (new route only) + test/integration/api.test.ts (new tests only) — no UI, Worker entrypoint, MCP package, or OpenAPI spec files changed.

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed. (ruleCode is not sensitive — unlike a contributor login, which is why the fairness/contributors routes need a detail+summary split and this doesn't.)
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth changes include negative-path tests — new test asserts 401 without the internal bearer token (the route rides the existing shared /v1/internal/* middleware; no new auth logic was written).
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed — new route has a dedicated test; no OpenAPI registration needed (see above).
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states — N/A, no UI changes.
• UI Evidence — N/A, no visible UI change (backend-only route).

UI Evidence

N/A — backend-only change, no UI surface touched.

Notes

• Design choice: the issue's own text offers "a route (or a new operator-dashboard field), following the existing pattern used for the blended view." The blended view's actual pattern in operator-dashboard.ts only ever surfaces a derived count (rulesBelowClosePrecisionFloor(...).length), never raw rows — matching that literally would not satisfy the issue's stated goal ("operator can see which specific rule is broken on which specific repo"), since a count alone doesn't identify project/rule pairs. rule-gate-eval.ts's own module header says it "mirrors contributor-gate-eval.ts EXACTLY" — and that sibling module's finer-grained view is already exposed via a dedicated route (/v1/internal/fairness/contributors/:login) rather than a dashboard field, precisely because raw per-entity rows need their own reachable endpoint. Since ruleCode (unlike a contributor login) carries no privacy concern, the closer and simpler precedent is the unflagged GET /v1/internal/fleet/analytics (single route, ?days=, no detail/summary split) — that's what this PR mirrors.

[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 91.01%. Comparing base (8a3d2c9) to head (3598872).
⚠️ Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8929      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.84%   91.01%   -2.84%     
==========================================
  Files         803       97     -706     
  Lines       80084    24932   -55152     
  Branches    24277     4672   -19605     
==========================================
- Hits        75157    22692   -52465     
+ Misses       3562     1975    -1587     
+ Partials     1365      265    -1100     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	95.20% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/api/routes.ts	95.20% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

... and 706 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-26 13:50:24 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · CI green · clean

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

Review summary
This adds a single GET /v1/internal/rule-gate-eval route wiring the existing, previously-unused computeRuleGateEval into the API, mirroring the sibling contributor/fleet-analytics internal routes in file:line style, auth gating, and the ?days= convention (default 90). The tests cover the three meaningful branches (per-project vs pooled shape, days present/default, 401 without bearer token) and assert against real DB-seeded review_audit rows rather than fabricated payloads, so the tests exercise the real code path through computeRuleGateEval. The change is narrow, closes #8906 as required, and does not touch OpenAPI spec/UI/worker surfaces, consistent with this being an internal-only route.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• src/api/routes.ts:4416 — the `90` default lookback window is a repeated magic number across this file (fleet analytics, fairness routes, this route); consider a shared constant (e.g. mirroring BREAKER_EVAL_WINDOW_DAYS) instead of re-hardcoding it at each call site.
• The long comment block above the new route (src/api/routes.ts:4405-4413) is dense; could be trimmed to the load-bearing facts (bearer-gated, default window, no privacy concern) without the full cross-reference to other modules.
• Consider importing/reusing BREAKER_EVAL_WINDOW_DAYS (or an equivalent named constant) for the `90` default in src/api/routes.ts:4416 instead of a bare literal, matching the pattern already used for GATE_OUTCOME_BREAKDOWN_WINDOW_DAYS elsewhere in this file.

Why this is blocked

• No linked issue detected: No closing reference or linked issue number was found in the PR metadata/body. — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

Fix the following blocker(s) from this PR review:

1. No linked issue detected: No closing reference or linked issue number was found in the PR metadata/body. — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

Decision drivers

• ❌ Code review — 1 blocker (1 reviewer)
• ❌ Gate result — Blocking (Repo-configured hard blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ No-issue rationale	PR body explains why no issue is linked.
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 (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 21 registered-repo PR(s), 7 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	hurryup52; Gittensor profile; 21 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

Review context

• Author: hurryup52
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: JavaScript, TypeScript, Dart, MDX, Rust
• Official Gittensor activity: 21 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 6 meaningful terms. (PR #8928)

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Review top overlaps.
• Then work through the remaining 3 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.

Decision record

• action: hold · clause: missing_linked_issue
• config: 03a7f8b529a9 · pack: oss-anti-slop
• record: ec286ed375dd (schema v2, head 3598872)

_{🟩 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 is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (No linked issue detected). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.