openapi: 5 repo maintainer-report routes missing from spec (maintainer-noise, ams-miner-cohort, gate-precision, outcome-calibration, activation-preview)

[phamngocquy]

Summary

Re-opened after prior PRs (#9422, #9427, #9429) were closed — conflicts with main and/or one-shot review policy (no post-open pushes).

Rebased onto current main (includes #9421, #9426, #9415, #9419).

Five GET /v1/repos/:owner/:repo/* maintainer-report routes are live and MCP-mirrored but were missing from the OpenAPI spec. This PR adds:

• registerPath entries for all five routes in src/openapi/spec.ts
• Three new response schemas in src/openapi/schemas.ts (gate-precision, outcome-calibration, activation-preview)
• Wires existing MaintainerNoiseReport / AmsMinerCohortComparison components to their paths
• Regenerated apps/loopover-ui/public/openapi.json via npm run ui:openapi
• Regression tests in test/unit/openapi.test.ts (tool-parity for all five routes; scoring-route and pending-actions tests from merged PRs retained)

Scope

• Backend / OpenAPI only — no visible UI change
• Linked open issue: Fixes openapi: 5 repo maintainer-report routes missing from spec (maintainer-noise, ams-miner-cohort, gate-precision, outcome-calibration, activation-preview) #9302

Validation

• npm run ui:openapi + npm run ui:openapi:check
• npx vitest run test/unit/openapi.test.ts

UI Evidence

N/A — schema/doc-only change; no visible UI change. Regenerated openapi.json is the OpenAPI artifact, not a UI screenshot.

Fixes #9302

Made with Cursor

[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 76.10%. Comparing base (bc666b6) to head (642942b).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9436      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.51%   76.10%   +0.59%     
==========================================
  Files         275      278       +3     
  Lines       58032    59636    +1604     
  Branches     6209     6456     +247     
==========================================
+ Hits        43820    45388    +1568     
- Misses      13942    13955      +13     
- Partials      270      293      +23     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	97.75% <100.00%> (?)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/mcp/server.ts	97.13% <100.00%> (ø)
src/openapi/schemas.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/openapi/spec.ts	99.57% <100.00%> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-27 18:46:14 UTC}

5 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 100/100 · 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 — 6 non-blocking

• src/openapi/schemas.ts uses z.unknown()/z.array(z.unknown()) for several nested fields (perGateType, overall, slop, recommendations, samples) — this documents the shape only loosely; consider tightening if the underlying report builders' shapes stabilize.
• The magic HTTP status literals (200/401/403) repeated across all five new registerPath blocks mirror the existing file's convention, so this is a style nit only, not a new pattern introduced by this diff.
• test/unit/openapi.test.ts's new parity test only checks top-level property key sets equal, not types/nesting, so a field renamed to a different type on either side would still pass.
• Consider whether perGateType/overall could be typed more precisely from buildGatePrecisionReport's return shape rather than z.unknown(), to catch drift at the OpenAPI layer too.
• Double check the regenerated openapi.json diff (not fully visible here) doesn't include unrelated churn beyond the five new paths/schemas.
• Diff looks like trivial or whitespace-only churn — Reduce whitespace-only or formatting-only churn and keep the diff focused on substantive changes.

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	#9302
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: 18 registered-repo PR(s), 9 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	phamngocquy; Gittensor profile; 18 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: low · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff adds registerPath entries for all five maintainer-report routes, defines the three new response schemas (GatePrecisionResponse, OutcomeCalibrationResponse, ActivationPreviewResponse) with field parity to their MCP output shapes, wires the two already-existing schemas to their paths, regenerates openapi.json, and adds a regression test asserting all five paths and schema key parity.

Review context

• Author: phamngocquy
• 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: 18 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.

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.