fix(github): finish @gittensory -> @loopover cutover in gittensory-engine + regen openapi.json

[JSONbored]

Summary

• PR feat(github)!: rename the @gittensory bot mention command to @loopover #5715 renamed the mention command's dispatch regex (src/github/commands.ts) but its @gittensory-scoped sweep never reached packages/gittensory-engine/ — a separate source root — leaving several @gittensory <command> syntax examples live in JSDoc comments (focus-manifest.ts, types/manifest-deps-types.ts).
• Those JSDoc comments feed the generated OpenAPI schema descriptions, so apps/gittensory-ui/public/openapi.json was stale (still had the pre-rebrand "Gittensory API" title) and failing ui:openapi:check.
• Regenerates openapi.json from current source now that both are consistent.

Test plan

• npx tsx scripts/write-ui-openapi.ts --check passes
• grep -rn "@gittensory" --include="*.ts" across the repo returns zero matches
• Confirmed the Gittensor subnet/token name (a distinct, unrelated identifier) was not touched

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying with    Cloudflare Workers

The latest updates on your project. Learn more about integrating Git with Workers.

Status	Name	Latest Commit	Preview URL	Updated (UTC)
✅ Deployment successful! View logs	loopover-ui	cc71676	Commit Preview URL Branch Preview URL	Jul 14 2026, 07:29 AM

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-14 07:29:56 UTC}

6 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• AI review could not be completed: The dual-model AI review did not return a usable verdict for this change.

Review summary
This PR finishes a `@​gittensory` → `@​loopover` rebrand cutover that PR #5715 missed in `packages/gittensory-engine/` (JSDoc comments in `focus-manifest.ts` and `manifest-deps-types.ts`), regenerates the now-stale `apps/gittensory-ui/public/openapi.json` to match, and reflows a few JSX text blocks in `docs.tuning.tsx`/`maintainer-settings.tsx`/`app.runs.tsx` with no semantic change. The renames are consistent (title, descriptions, mention-command examples) and the PR explicitly confirms the distinct `Gittensor` subnet/token identifier was left untouched, which is the correct scoping call. This is comment/generated-artifact-only churn with no logic touched, so it's low risk, though it carries zero test coverage by nature (JSDoc + regenerated schema + prose reflow).

Nits — 7 non-blocking

• No explicit open-issue link is included in the PR description beyond referencing PR feat(github)!: rename the @gittensory bot mention command to @loopover #5715 as the source of the incomplete rebrand — worth tying to a tracked issue per repo convention.
• The JSX reflow hunks in docs.tuning.tsx, maintainer-settings.tsx, and app.runs.tsx are pure line-wrap changes unrelated to the stated rebrand/openapi intent — consider splitting formatting-only diffs from the rebrand fix in future PRs to keep the diff minimal.
• Confirm no `@​gittensory` references remain in non-`.ts` files (e.g. `.md` docs, `.yml` samples) since the test plan's grep was scoped to `--include="*.ts"`.
• Run `grep -rn "@​gittensory"` across `*.md`/`*.yml` as well to make sure the cutover is fully complete outside TypeScript sources.
• Consider a lint/check step that fails CI whenever `openapi.json` drifts from source JSDoc, so this class of staleness is caught before merge next time.
• Code changes lack test evidence — Add focused regression tests or explain why existing coverage is sufficient.
• AI review could not be completed — The gate is held for a human reviewer rather than passed automatically; it re-evaluates on the next update.

Concerns raised — review before merging

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

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

1. No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

2. Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example `Closes #123`) before opening the PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
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 (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 45 registered-repo PR(s), 37 merged, 321 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 45 PR(s), 321 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.
Improvement	⚠️ ℹ️ None detected	risk: low · value: none — No structural-improvement signals were detected for this PR. LLM value judgment: minor — The change is a narrow, mechanical follow-up that closes a known consistency gap (stale rebrand strings feeding a generated schema) rather than adding new capability, which is valuable but limited in scope.

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, TypeScript, Ruby, Go, JavaScript, MDX, Shell, Solidity
• Official Gittensor activity: 45 PR(s), 321 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Explain no-issue PR.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.

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.

[BETA] Chat with Gittensory

Ask Gittensory a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @gittensory ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @gittensory chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @gittensory mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically -- no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://gittensory.aethereal.dev/docs/gittensory-commands

Visual preview

Route	Viewport	Before (production)	After (this PR's preview)	Diff
/app/runs	desktop			—
/app/runs	mobile			—
/docs/tuning	desktop			—
/docs/tuning	mobile			—

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

_{🟩 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