fix(review): wire AMS reputation bridge into reputation gate

[jsdevninja]

Summary

• Wire bridgeAmsReputation into getEffectiveSubmitterReputation behind resolveConvergedFeature(..., amsReputationBridge, ...) and resolveAmsTrackRecordEndpoint(env).
• When the feature and env gates are on, a qualifying AMS track record can upgrade a local neutral/low signal to trusted, which changes the end-to-end AI-spend gate decision.
• When any activation gate is off, or AMS does not vouch, behavior stays identical to the pre-bridge local signal (upgrade-only, never downgrade).

Closes #6801

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves (e.g. Closes #123) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage locally; codecov/patch requires ≥99% coverage of the lines AND branches you changed (aim for 100% on your diff so CI variance does not fail near the threshold). Global coverage is a non-blocking trend with a loose 90% backstop, not the gate.
• npm run test:workers
• npm run build:mcp
• npm run test:mcp-pack
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npm run ui:lint
• npm run ui:typecheck
• npm run ui:build
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• Full npm run test:ci was started locally; focused coverage for src/review/reputation-wire.ts is 100% statements/branches/functions/lines via test/unit/reputation-wiring.test.ts + test/unit/ams-reputation-bridge.test.ts. Remaining skipped boxes are unchanged by this PR (no UI/OpenAPI/MCP/worker surface changes) and will be exercised by GitHub CI.

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots arranged as organized, captioned, clickable thumbnails. SVG screenshots are not used as review evidence. Review-only screenshots or recordings are not committed to the repository.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

UI Evidence

N/A — backend reputation-gate wiring only; no visible UI change.

Notes

• Regression coverage asserts feature-on upgrade + end-to-end shouldSkipAiForReputation effect, feature-off byte-identical local signal, and the upgrade-only no-downgrade contract.

[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 93.70%. Comparing base (54b784a) to head (ae95968).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6910   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.70%   93.70%           
=======================================
  Files         685      685           
  Lines       68292    68299    +7     
  Branches    18718    18722    +4     
=======================================
+ Hits        63993    64000    +7     
  Misses       3302     3302           
  Partials      997      997           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.62% <33.33%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
shard-2	36.82% <0.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.59% <25.00%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
shard-4	34.37% <0.00%> (-0.40%)	⬇️
shard-5	31.52% <8.33%> (+0.32%)	⬆️
shard-6	46.01% <100.00%> (+0.33%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/review/reputation-wire.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-17 12:28:48 UTC}

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

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This PR wires the previously-built but unused AMS reputation bridge into getEffectiveSubmitterReputation, gated by both a global env check (isAmsReputationBridgeEnabled) and a per-repo converged-feature flag, and applies it uniformly across all three return paths in the function (burst/low downgrade, no-submitter, and post-install-wide-widening). The bridge is strictly upgrade-only (signal replaced only when it differs, no explicit downgrade path) and every external call (manifest load, AMS fetch) is wrapped to fail safe to the pre-bridge local signal, matching the file's existing fail-safe convention. The linked issue #6801 explicitly calls out that the bridge was built but never wired in, and this diff is a direct, non-cosmetic fix at the correct call site (not a symptom patch), with new tests exercising the upgrade path, all-gates-off parity, no-vouch non-downgrade, and manifest-failure fail-safe.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• src/review/reputation-wire.ts:71 — applyAmsReputationBridge always calls loadRepoFocusManifest (a DB read) once isReputationEnabled and isAmsReputationBridgeEnabled pass, even on the common no-submitter path; worth confirming this extra per-request DB hit is acceptable given it's feature-flagged and defaults off.
• The `ORB/AMS reputation bridge is fully built but never wired into the reputation gate it exists to feed #6801` issue-number reference embedded in the applyAmsReputationBridge doc comment (reputation-wire.ts:85) is fine as historical grounding but isn't a named constant — purely stylistic, consistent with existing `fix(review): make submitter-reputation burst/AI-spend defense install-wide (or confirmed-miner-aware) using the existing official_miner_detections cache #4513`/`feat(review): add a submission-cadence/inter-arrival-time signal to the reputation and slop models to flag machine-paced submitters #4514` comments in the same file.
• Consider hoisting the repeated `applyAmsReputationBridge(env, args.repoFullName, submitter, X)` calls in getEffectiveSubmitterReputation into a single trailing call by restructuring the early returns to just compute `local` and fall through once, reducing the four near-identical call sites to one (minor DRY improvement, not required).

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	#6801
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: 203 registered-repo PR(s), 130 merged, 40 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	jsdevninja; Gittensor profile; 203 PR(s), 40 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: significant

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff wires bridgeAmsReputation into getEffectiveSubmitterReputation via a new applyAmsReputationBridge helper gated by resolveConvergedFeature/isAmsReputationBridgeEnabled with resolveAmsTrackRecordEndpoint(env), and shouldSkipAiForReputation inherits this since it calls getEffectiveSubmitterReputation; tests cover the end-to-end upgrade, feature-off regression, and never-downgrade cases as re

Review context

• Author: jsdevninja
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: JavaScript, Swift, C, CSS, MDX, Python, TypeScript, Vue
• Official Gittensor activity: 203 PR(s), 40 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.

_{🟩 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.