feat(api): REST + CLI mirror for loopover_pr_outcome

[lourincedaging0-commits]

What

The loopover_pr_outcome MCP tool returns a contributor's own merged-PR outcome
history (self-scoped via requireContributorAccess), but it was the only surface
for that data — no REST route, no CLI mirror — despite fitting the existing
/v1/contributors/:login/... route family alongside the open-PR monitor.

This adds the two missing surfaces and collapses all three onto one shared builder:

• REST: GET /v1/contributors/:login/pr-outcomes — self-scoped, with ?limit=N
  mirroring the tool's 1..100 bound.
• CLI: registers the loopover_pr_outcome stdio tool, which proxies that route.
• Shared builder: the MCP tool, the route, and the CLI all delegate to one
  buildContributorPrOutcomes in src/signals/ (mirroring the
  buildContributorOpenPrMonitor sibling), so the three surfaces return a
  byte-identical payload and can't drift.

Also reconciles the stdio tool-count invariant to the true live count of 73 (base
was 71; #6942's get_maintainer_lane mirror took it to 72 without bumping the
invariant, leaving main red on validate-tests; this tool makes it 73).

Tests

• routes-pr-outcomes.test.ts (7) — own-history happy path, self-scoping (a session
  can't read another login), operator-token override, ?limit applied + malformed
  ?limit rejected with 400 (not clamped), empty-history returns [] not an error,
  and no wallet/hotkey/trust-score/reward terms leak.
• mcp-cli-pr-outcome-tool.test.ts (3) — tool is registered on the stdio server,
  proxies to GET /v1/contributors/:login/pr-outcomes returning the route payload
  verbatim (parity), and forwards the optional limit as a query param.
• Extends the shared mcp-cli-harness with the /pr-outcomes fixture route and an
  onApiRequest hook.

[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 93.71%. Comparing base (244988b) to head (5b5fba9).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6965   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.71%   93.71%           
=======================================
  Files         685      686    +1     
  Lines       68379    68393   +14     
  Branches    18730    18733    +3     
=======================================
+ Hits        64080    64094   +14     
  Misses       3302     3302           
  Partials      997      997           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.74% <12.50%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-2	36.93% <43.75%> (+0.12%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.89% <12.50%> (+0.09%)	⬆️
shard-4	33.73% <93.75%> (-0.72%)	⬇️
shard-5	32.16% <12.50%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-6	45.74% <12.50%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/api/routes.ts	94.83% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
src/mcp/server.ts	96.30% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
src/signals/contributor-pr-outcomes.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-17 16:20:41 UTC}

8 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · CI green · dirty

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

Review summary
This PR adds a REST route and CLI mirror for the existing `loopover_pr_outcome` MCP tool, extracting the shared logic into `buildContributorPrOutcomes` so all three surfaces stay in sync — the same established pattern as the sibling `open-pr-monitor` feature. The refactor of `src/mcp/server.ts` correctly delegates to the new builder without behavior change, the REST route properly self-scopes via `requireContributorAccess` and rejects malformed `?limit` with 400 rather than clamping, and the stdio tool-count invariant is correctly bumped to 76. Tests cover self-scoping, operator override, limit validation, empty-history, and CLI/route parity — this looks like a well-targeted, low-risk mirror PR.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• src/api/routes.ts:3313 uses the bare literal `400` for the limit's upper bound and duplicates the `1..100` range check already encoded in `prOutcomeShape` in the CLI file — consider a shared constant if this pattern repeats again.
• The PR description doesn't link to a specific open GitHub issue number (only `REST + CLI mirror for loopover_pr_outcome #6747` as a tracking reference) — worth confirming this maps to an actual open, maintainer-eligible issue rather than being self-initiated scope.
• Consider extracting the `1..100` limit-validation logic (route) and `z.number().int().positive().max(100)` (CLI schema) into one shared validator if a fourth such route is added, to avoid three separate places encoding the same bound.
• The JSDoc-style comment in contributor-pr-outcomes.ts:24-25 is a two-line comment block; per repo convention prefer a single short line unless the extra context is essential.
• Readiness score is below the configured threshold — Use the readiness panel as advisory maintainer context; the score does not block this PR.

Why this is blocked

• 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.

Decision drivers

• ❌ Code review — 2 blockers (1 reviewer)
• ❌ Gate result — Blocking (Repo-configured hard blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
Related work	⚠️ 3 scoped overlaps	Top overlaps are listed below; lower-confidence bulk is hidden.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High 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: 116 registered-repo PR(s), 58 merged, 5 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	lourincedaging0-commits; Gittensor profile; 116 PR(s), 5 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Review context

• Author: lourincedaging0-commits
• 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: 116 PR(s), 5 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 6 meaningful terms. (PR #6963)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 5 meaningful terms. (issue #6747)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 8 meaningful terms. (issue #6744, issue #6743)
• Additional title-only matches omitted; title-only overlap does not block.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Explain no-issue PR.
• Then work through the remaining 4 steps in the Signals table above.

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 is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (conflicts with the base branch — resolve and open a fresh PR; No linked issue detected; Maintainer requires a linked issue). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.