feat(issues): generate recommended contributor issue drafts from repo policy

[JSONbored]

Parent roadmap: #82

Background

As Gittensory evolves, maintainers need a repeatable way to create high-quality contributor issues without manually rebuilding context each time.

Goal

Generate structured issue drafts from repo focus policy, signal gaps, upstream drift, and current backlog state for maintainer approval.

Current Behavior

Issues are currently hand-authored. That gives good quality, but it does not scale as the project attracts more contributors.

Desired Behavior

An authenticated maintainer can generate issue drafts that include background, requirements, boundaries, acceptance criteria, and 97% testing requirements, without auto-posting by default.

Implementation Requirements

• Add draft-generation service or admin command.
• Use repo focus policy and current open issues to avoid duplicates.
• Include full issue body contract.
• Default to dry-run output.
• Optional posting must be explicit and audit logged.

Public/Private Output Boundaries

Self-dogfood reports may include private maintainer/config readiness in authenticated views. Public docs/issues must stay advisory and must not imply guaranteed Gittensor payouts.

Acceptance Criteria

• Drafts include deep context and testing requirements.
• Existing issue titles/fingerprints are considered.
• Dry run does not create issues.
• Optional create path is explicit and deduped.

Testing Requirements

• npm run test:ci must pass.
• Global coverage must remain at or above 97% for lines, statements, functions, and branches.
• Aim for 98%+ branch coverage locally to avoid CI variance.
• Add tests for every new branch, fallback path, sanitizer rule, and regression.
• Add invariant/property-style tests when behavior depends on sorting, gating, scoring, queue pressure, source-upload safety, public/private boundaries, or upstream drift.
• Public GitHub output must be tested against forbidden language: wallet, hotkey, raw trust score, payout, reward estimate, farming, private reviewability, and public score estimate.
• MCP/local tooling must prove source contents are not uploaded.

Additional Test Scenarios

• Draft generation fixture.
• Duplicate issue fixture.
• Dry-run no-create test.
• Optional create audit test.
• Public text hygiene regression.