fix(mcp): correct loopover_check_issue_slop description and drop the dead issue-slop rubric

[bitfathers94]

fix(mcp): correct loopover_check_issue_slop description and drop the dead issue-slop rubric

The registered loopover_check_issue_slop stdio tool description still promised
"slopRisk (0-100), band, findings, and the rubric", but the /v1/lint/issue-slop
route strips its response to {band, findings} by design (#6990) — the claim was
never updated. Match the description to the actual response shape.

ISSUE_SLOP_RUBRIC_MARKDOWN in src/signals/issue-slop.ts had zero consumers (not
even a test); unlike the PR-side SLOP_RUBRIC_MARKDOWN it was never wired into an
in-process self-check, so delete it rather than leave a dead constant behind.

Add an in-process regression test that reads the registered description and
asserts it describes {band, findings} without the stale slopRisk/rubric claims.

Closes #8907

Validation

Verified locally on this branch before opening:

• npm run typecheck
• npx turbo run build:tsc build:verify
• npm run test:coverage — patch coverage 100.0% of changed lines

[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 83.33%. Comparing base (6aaea39) to head (872e873).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8959      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.56%   83.33%   -7.23%     
==========================================
  Files          96       98       +2     
  Lines       22490    24782    +2292     
  Branches     3884     4760     +876     
==========================================
+ Hits        20367    20653     +286     
- Misses       1945     3941    +1996     
- Partials      178      188      +10     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	12.47% <ø> (?)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
packages/loopover-mcp/bin/loopover-mcp.ts	10.84% <ø> (ø)
src/signals/issue-slop.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-26 14:36:14 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 95/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This PR fixes a stale tool description string in loopover-mcp.ts (dropping the incorrect 'slopRisk (0-100)' and 'the rubric' claims to match the actual {band, findings} response shape) and deletes the dead, zero-consumer ISSUE_SLOP_RUBRIC_MARKDOWN constant from issue-slop.ts. It adds a new regression test that connects to the in-process server via InMemoryTransport and asserts the registered description contains 'band and findings' but not 'slopRisk' or 'the rubric'. The change is small, correct, well-scoped to the description drift called out in the PR body, and directly closes #8907.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• The 'generic_secret_assignment' flag on test/unit/mcp-check-issue-slop-description.test.ts:26 is a false positive — that line sets `process.env.LOOPOVER_API_TOKEN = "in-process-token"`, a hardcoded placeholder test fixture value, not a real secret.
• The external size-smell flag on packages/loopover-mcp/bin/loopover-mcp.ts is pre-existing file size, not something this 1-line diff introduces.
• Consider also asserting the description doesn't regress to mention 'slopRisk' in camelCase variants or similar near-misses, though the current exact-string checks are sufficient for this fix.
• The comment in issue-slop.ts:23 area referencing the deleted rubric export could be double-checked for any stale references elsewhere, though none are visible in this diff.
• Possible secret-shaped assignment in the diff (generic_secret_assignment) — Verify the value is not a real credential.

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	#8907
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: 45 registered-repo PR(s), 37 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bitfathers94; Gittensor profile; 45 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR updates the loopover_check_issue_slop tool description to match the actual {band, findings} response shape, deletes the dead ISSUE_SLOP_RUBRIC_MARKDOWN constant (choosing the deletion option rather than wiring it into a self-check tool), and adds a regression test asserting the description content.

Review context

• Author: bitfathers94
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: TypeScript
• Official Gittensor activity: 45 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Triage stale or unlinked PRs.

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.