fix(orb): add 3 documented maintainer-session routes to the path allowlist

[kai392]

Fixes #8653

Root cause

canSessionAccessPath (src/api/routes.ts) is the coarse pre-route allowlist that runs in middleware for every non-operator browser session. Three routes call requireRepoMaintainer internally and each documents itself as maintainer-session-reachable — but none had a predicate in the allowlist, so a real non-operator maintainer session hit the coarse 403 before the handler's own guard could admit it:

• automation-state — comment: "Maintainer-gated like /settings" (which is allowlisted)
• ams-miner-cohort — comment: "mirrors maintainer-noise" (which is allowlisted)
• pulls/:number/chat-qa — comment: exposes to the maintainer panel; confirmed live — apps/loopover-ui/.../chat-qa-panel.tsx calls it with credentials: "include"

Fix

Added three path predicates (isRepoAutomationStatePath, isRepoAmsMinerCohortPath, isRepoChatQaPath), mirroring the existing isRepoMaintainerNoisePath shape exactly, and wired them into canSessionAccessPath. This only decides whether a session may reach the path — each route's own requireRepoMaintainer still enforces per-repo authority, so a maintainer of A reaching B still gets 403 forbidden_repo.

Tests

Added to test/unit/access-boundary.test.ts following its established template — for all 3 routes, a maintainer session reaches its own repo (200) and is rejected on a different maintainer's repo (403 forbidden_repo). No AI mock was needed for chat-qa: with the default settings (advisoryAiRouting.chatQa off), the real answer service returns a 200 disabled status, so a seeded PR is enough to prove reachability.

Validation

• test/unit/access-boundary.test.ts: 12 passed, on a branch rebased onto current main
• lcov scoped to routes.ts: every added line and both branches of each new predicate covered
• npm run typecheck clean; oxlint clean on the changed lines; git diff --check clean

[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 91.02%. Comparing base (63497bd) to head (4e1ad31).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8710      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.56%   91.02%   +0.46%     
==========================================
  Files          96       97       +1     
  Lines       22490    24901    +2411     
  Branches     3884     4659     +775     
==========================================
+ Hits        20367    22665    +2298     
- Misses       1945     1971      +26     
- Partials      178      265      +87     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	95.31% <100.00%> (?)

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	95.31% <100.00%> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-26 00:15:29 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 adds three narrowly-scoped regex predicates to the coarse session path allowlist (`canSessionAccessPath`) mirroring the exact shape of the existing `isRepoMaintainerNoisePath` entry, closing a real gap where maintainer sessions hit a 403 before reaching each route's own `requireRepoMaintainer` guard. Each new route retains its own per-repo guard (confirmed unchanged in the full file), so the fix does not widen authority — it only fixes reachability, matching the stated intent exactly. Tests follow the established template and cover both same-repo (200) and cross-repo (403 forbidden_repo) cases for all three routes, including a legitimate non-mocked path for chat-qa via the default-disabled AI routing flag.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• The `fix(orb): session allowlist is missing 3 routes that explicitly document themselves as maintainer-session routes #8653` explanatory comment is duplicated near-verbatim above both the allowlist entries and the predicate functions (src/api/routes.ts) — one placement would suffice.
• The three new regexes are structurally identical to `isRepoMaintainerNoisePath` and could be generated by a small helper (e.g. `repoScopedPathMatcher(segment)`), though the existing file already favors this repetitive one-function-per-route style, so consistency with convention outweighs DRY here.
• Consider consolidating the two `fix(orb): session allowlist is missing 3 routes that explicitly document themselves as maintainer-session routes #8653` comment blocks in src/api/routes.ts into a single reference comment to avoid drift if the routes list changes again.
• If more maintainer-session routes are added later, consider a small allowlist-registration helper to avoid this exact omission class recurring (per the issue's stated root cause).

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	#8653
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: 152 registered-repo PR(s), 81 merged, 6 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	kai392; Gittensor profile; 152 PR(s), 6 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Review context

• Author: kai392
• 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: 152 PR(s), 6 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.