fix(ci): capture review-enrichment node:test coverage for Codecov

[RealDiligent]

Summary

• Root cause: @loopover/rees runs a real node:test suite in CI, but Codecov only ingested vitest lcov. Vitest listed a single unused review-enrichment/src/analyzers/codeowners.ts entry, so all 83 REES source files (including secret-scan.ts) were invisible to the 99% patch gate.
• Fix: Harvest coverage with c8 over the built dist/ (source-map remapped to review-enrichment/src/**) via scripts/rees-coverage.mjs, upload under a separate rees Codecov flag, remove the stale vitest include, and run validate-tests shards on REES-only PRs so after_n_builds: 6 still posts a real patch verdict.
• Impact: REES-only PRs get a real, non-vacuous Codecov patch check instead of a blind spot.

Closes #6250

Test plan

• vitest codecov-policy regression for the new wiring
• Local npm run rees:coverage produces lcov with 83 review-enrichment/src/** files (~91% lines)
• CI validate-code / validate-tests / Codecov

Risk / tradeoffs

• c8 instrumentation can trip REES timing/ReDoS tests; authoritative pass/fail stays the uninstrumented npm --prefix review-enrichment test step. Coverage harvest uses || true and fails closed only if lcov is missing.
• Prior attempt fix(ci): capture review-enrichment's node:test coverage for Codecov #6431 was closed for force-push CI churn — this PR lands as one commit and will not force-push after opening.

[loopover-orb]

Warning

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-16 11:51:49 UTC}

8 files · no blockers · CI pending · blocked

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• Touches a guarded path — held for manual review: This PR changes guardrail-protected path(s): codecov.yml (matched **/codecov.yml), .github/workflows/ci.yml (matched .github/workflows/**).

Nits — 2 non-blocking

• Diff looks like trivial or whitespace-only churn — Reduce whitespace-only or formatting-only churn and keep the diff focused on substantive changes.
• Touches a guarded path — held for manual review — A maintainer must review and merge this change.

Decision drivers

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

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#6250
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 (draft PR; 1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 333 registered-repo PR(s), 161 merged, 30 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	RealDiligent; Gittensor profile; 333 PR(s), 30 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: low · value: minor

Review context

• Author: RealDiligent
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, JavaScript, Ruby, Svelte, TypeScript, Markdown, MDX
• Official Gittensor activity: 333 PR(s), 30 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Mark ready when done.

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.

_{🟩 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 93.59%. Comparing base (c76ece3) to head (2532633).
⚠️ Report is 16 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6527      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.56%   93.59%   -1.98%     
==========================================
  Files         589      671      +82     
  Lines       47121    67573   +20452     
  Branches    14989    18573    +3584     
==========================================
+ Hits        45032    63242   +18210     
- Misses       1297     3360    +2063     
- Partials      792      971     +179     

Flag	Coverage Δ
rees	88.51% <ø> (?)
shard-1	44.18% <ø> (+0.11%)	⬆️
shard-2	36.80% <ø> (+0.09%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.42% <ø> (+0.08%)	⬆️
shard-4	35.33% <ø> (+0.09%)	⬆️
shard-5	31.06% <ø> (+0.07%)	⬆️
shard-6	45.50% <ø> (+0.11%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
see 83 files with indirect coverage changes