fix(orb): filter contributor-draft implementation requirements through the public-safe path

[shin-core]

What & why

Closes #9704.

wantedPathCandidate in contributor-issue-draft.ts built two sections from the same
manifest.testExpectations array but handled them differently:

• testingRequirements ran it through isFocusManifestPublicSafe + formatContributorIssueDraftTestExpectation.
• implementationRequirements, four lines away, mapped the raw entries into Run ${entry} before requesting review. — no public-safe filter, a different format.

So a public-unsafe expectation was dropped from one contributor-facing list but rendered verbatim in
the other, and the two "Run" spellings diverged.

Change

Extract the shared computation into one private publicSafeTestExpectations(manifest) helper, used by
both buildContributorIssueDraftTestingRequirements and wantedPathCandidate, so the filter+format is
applied identically and a third consumer cannot repeat the divergence. The GENERIC_TESTING_REQUIREMENTS
fallback stays specific to testingRequirements; implementationRequirements keeps its
contribute-nothing-when-empty behaviour. No change to isFocusManifestPublicSafe,
formatContributorIssueDraftTestExpectation, or isContributorIssueDraftPublicSafe.

Validation

• A public-unsafe expectation ("wallet seed phrase") is filtered out of both lists and never
  reaches the draft (the draft is produced, not skipped, and carries no such text).
• A wanted-path candidate's implementationRequirements carry the identical public-safe-filtered
  expectations as testingRequirements.
• Bug-catch verified: reverting implementationRequirements to the raw map fails both new tests.
• 100% patch coverage on the changed lines.

[superagent-security]

🚨 Contributor flagged. Click here for more info: Superagent Dashboard

[loopover-orb]

Warning

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-29 06:38:56 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI green · unstable

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• Required AI review was skipped by a submitter-reputation downgrade: This repository requires blocking AI review, and the submitter's recent-submission signal downgraded this PR to deterministic-only checks. Those checks do not read code semantics, so the gate is held for human review instead of passing automatically.

Review summary
Extracts the duplicated filter+format logic into a shared publicSafeTestExpectations helper so testingRequirements and implementationRequirements apply the same public-safe filter and formatting to manifest.testExpectations, closing the divergence bug in #9704. The fix is correctly traced to the source (the raw map at the old implementationRequirements line is replaced with the shared helper), tests assert both lists are identical and that an unsafe entry is dropped from both, and a revert test confirms the fix is load-bearing rather than can't-occur. Behavior for empty testExpectations is preserved (GENERIC_TESTING_REQUIREMENTS stays scoped to testingRequirements; implementationRequirements contributes nothing when empty), matching the stated intent.

Nits — 6 non-blocking

• The JSDoc comment on publicSafeTestExpectations (contributor-issue-draft.ts:127-129) references issue orb(drafting): apply the public-safe filter and the expectation formatter on both draft paths #9704 by number inline in a doc comment rather than a linked constant/reference — minor, but the external brief flags the bare numeric literal as slightly unusual style for this file.
• contributor-issue-draft.ts is now ~498 lines; consider whether wantedPathCandidate/policyWarningCandidate/upstreamDriftCandidate could move to a separate module in a future pass, though this PR doesn't need to do that itself.
• The renamed test title changes assertion semantics (now expects skipped_unsafe===false) — worth double-checking no other test or downstream consumer still expects the old skipped_unsafe-on-unsafe-expectation behavior for implementationRequirements specifically.
• Consider adding a short comment or test asserting that formatContributorIssueDraftTestExpectation's idempotent-format branches (already-'Run '-prefixed, 'must pass', trailing '.') are exercised via the shared helper path, not just the default 'Run X before requesting review' case, since implementationRequirements previously never touched this formatter at all.
• The PR's shared helper is a good pattern to prevent a third consumer from re-diverging — call this out explicitly as the main value of the change in the PR description if not already emphasized enough for reviewers unfamiliar with orb(drafting): apply the public-safe filter and the expectation formatter on both draft paths #9704.
• Required AI review was skipped by a submitter-reputation downgrade — Review this PR manually, or run AI review with a trusted override, before merging.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ⚠️ Gate result — Not blocking (Advisory; not blocking this PR.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#9704
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	❌ 5/25	Preflight is holding this PR: the review lane is unavailable, so it is not ready for automated review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 38 registered-repo PR(s), 26 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	shin-core; Gittensor profile; 38 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Partially addressed
The diff correctly extracts a shared publicSafeTestExpectations helper and applies it to both implementationRequirements and testingRequirements, which fixes the core divergence and is validated by a new identical-list test and an updated skipped_unsafe test showing the unsafe entry no longer leaks. However, the issue explicitly required named regression tests for the doubled-"Run" formatting case

Review context

• Author: shin-core
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is registered but has no active allocation in the current snapshot.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 38 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Await review-lane availability.
• 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.

Decision record

• action: hold · clause: ai_review_inconclusive
• config: a7a687ac2633933328bd51c416081538e701641d421c4573461cab42d788a54b · pack: oss-anti-slop · ci: passed
• record: 464101ef225040e5d40a2944aed6851c8e21e2469ab3e634d9ee5fb03f9671cf (schema v5, head 4fc6b74)

_{🟩 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

[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 76.63%. Comparing base (5ecb771) to head (4fc6b74).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9755       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   90.27%   76.63%   -13.65%     
===========================================
  Files         904      283      -621     
  Lines      113177    59574    -53603     
  Branches    26840     8516    -18324     
===========================================
- Hits       102171    45653    -56518     
- Misses       9676    13633     +3957     
+ Partials     1330      288     -1042     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	93.54% <100.00%> (-2.00%)	⬇️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/services/contributor-issue-draft.ts	93.54% <100.00%> (-3.23%)	⬇️

... and 755 files with indirect coverage changes