fix(api): document ai-review-findings pull request route in openapi spec

[nghetien]

Summary

The GET /v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/ai-review-findings route has existed for a while, but it was never registered in the OpenAPI spec — unlike its maintainer-packet and reviewability siblings under the same /pulls/{number}/* path prefix.

This adds the missing documentation:

• PullRequestAiReviewFindingsSchema in src/openapi/schemas.ts, built from the route's actual response shape (reusing the same fields as the existing prAiReviewFindingsOutputSchema MCP tool shape).
• The path registration in src/openapi/spec.ts, including the login query parameter the route requires and its 400/403/404 responses.
• Regenerated apps/loopover-ui/public/openapi.json (npm run ui:openapi).
• A regression assertion in test/unit/openapi.test.ts so the path/schema can't silently disappear again.

Closes #9305

Scope

• Conventional Commit title.
• Focused change — only src/openapi/**, the regenerated openapi.json, and its test.
• No site//CNAME/VitePress touched.
• Linked open issue: Closes openapi: pulls/:number/ai-review-findings missing from spec, unlike its maintainer-packet + reviewability siblings #9305.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run typecheck
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npx vitest run test/unit/openapi.test.ts
• npx vitest run --changed=upstream/main --passWithNoTests (136 files / 1736 tests passed, run after rebasing onto latest main)
• engine/mcp/miner builds (turbo run build --filter=@loopover/engine, --filter=@loopover/mcp, build:tsc build:verify --filter=@loopover/miner)

Safety

• No secrets/wallet/hotkey/trust-score/reward data anywhere.
• No auth/cookie/CORS/session changes.
• OpenAPI contract updated and tested.
• No UI/visual change — this only documents an existing, already-gated backend route.
• No changelog edit.

UI Evidence

N/A — no visible UI change. This is purely an OpenAPI schema/path registration for an already-live backend route, plus the regenerated openapi.json artifact.

Notes

The route itself already existed with its access checks in place (requireContributorAccess + assertContributorOwnsPullRequest in src/api/routes.ts); this PR only closes the documentation gap so it shows up in the OpenAPI contract like its siblings.

[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 75.64%. Comparing base (0a93e29) to head (9139046).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9417       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   89.52%   75.64%   -13.88%     
===========================================
  Files         840      277      -563     
  Lines      109777    58361    -51416     
  Branches    26147     8206    -17941     
===========================================
- Hits        98275    44148    -54127     
- Misses      10239    13942     +3703     
+ Partials     1263      271      -992     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	99.69% <100.00%> (+4.45%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/openapi/schemas.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/openapi/spec.ts	99.50% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

... and 701 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-27 18:02:26 UTC}

4 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 98/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
The AI review returned non-blocking notes for this change but did not include a separate narrative summary. Review the nits below before deciding this PR.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• schemas.ts:2833 makes `headSha` optional in addition to nullable, but the description doesn't clarify whether the field is ever omitted entirely vs. just null — worth confirming against the actual route handler so the contract isn't looser than reality.
• The external size-smell flags on openapi.json/schemas.ts/spec.ts are pre-existing long files, not something this diff meaningfully worsens — not actionable here.
• Confirm the linked issue openapi: pulls/:number/ai-review-findings missing from spec, unlike its maintainer-packet + reviewability siblings #9305 is indeed about this missing-route-documentation gap so the issue-scope requirement is unambiguous.
• Consider verifying `categoryCounts` values in the schema always come back as plain numbers (not undefined) so `z.record(z.string(), z.number())` doesn't reject a real response.

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	#9305
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	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 14 registered-repo PR(s), 7 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	nghetien; Gittensor profile; 14 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds PullRequestAiReviewFindingsSchema in schemas.ts, registers the GET /pulls/{number}/ai-review-findings path in spec.ts mirroring the sibling patterns, regenerates openapi.json, and adds regression assertions covering both the path and schema keys.

Review context

• Author: nghetien
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Dart, JavaScript, Python, CSS, C#, C++, TypeScript
• Official Gittensor activity: 14 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

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: merge · clause: success
• config: 880f7f2f791554bb185ac1707c083434bb87378275801e67888915c88211a699 · pack: oss-anti-slop · ci: passed
• record: cbe047ebae2941af90ef8fbf01a0ea29dfb263d5f1daac07daf58eb65622a129 (schema v5, head 9139046)

Visual preview

Route	Viewport	Before (production)	After (this PR's preview)	Diff
/	desktop	before /	after /	—
/	mobile	before / (mobile)	after / (mobile)	—

Click any thumbnail to open the full-size screenshot. Before = production · After = this PR's preview deploy.

Scroll preview

Route	Before (production)	After (this PR's preview)
/	before / (scroll)	after / (scroll)

A short scroll-through clip (desktop) — click either thumbnail to open the full animation. Evidence for scroll-linked behavior a single screenshot can't show.

_{🟩 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.