feat(scoring): surface the review-collateral multiplier in the score breakdown

[andriypolanski]

Summary

explainScoreBreakdown (src/services/score-breakdown.ts) explains the review penalty multiplier (reviewPenaltyMultiplier) but silently omits the sibling review-collateral multiplier (gates.reviewCollateralMultiplier / gates.collateralFraction), even though upstream models it separately in src/scoring/preview.ts (#916) and it directly affects how much token score is reserved as open-PR collateral when a contributor has CHANGES_REQUESTED reviews on other open PRs.

Miners juggling concurrent work see open-PR pressure explained via openPrMultiplier, yet get no plain-English lever for why their collateral fraction is elevated above the base OPEN_PR_COLLATERAL_PERCENT.

What this adds

A reviewCollateralBreakdown component mirroring the existing reviewPenaltyBreakdown and sibling gate explainers (#1453, #1801):

• neutral / full when reviewCollateralMultiplier is at the baseline (no elevated collateral from review churn on open PRs).
• reduced when the multiplier is above 1 — summary names the effective collateral fraction (collateralFraction) and ties it to prior CHANGES_REQUESTED review churn on open PRs.
• Actionable lever: resolve outstanding change requests on open PRs before opening more concurrent work, or expect tighter collateral on the allowance.

Purely additive explanation over already-computed gate fields; no scoring behavior change.

Files touched (estimated)

File	Change
src/services/score-breakdown.ts	Add reviewCollateralBreakdown, wire into explainScoreBreakdown
test/unit/score-breakdown.test.ts	Baseline, elevated-collateral, and forbidden-term regression cases

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage — aim for 100% statements/branches on changed lines in src/services/score-breakdown.ts
• 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

Targeted test run:

npx vitest run test/unit/score-breakdown.test.ts --coverage --coverage.include='src/services/score-breakdown.ts'

Notes

Analogues to imitate end-to-end: reviewPenaltyBreakdown and openPrBreakdown in src/services/score-breakdown.ts, plus the merged-history floor tests in test/unit/score-breakdown.test.ts.

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-06-30 19:14:47 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 48/100 · CI green · unknown

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• Touches a guarded path — held for manual review

Review summary
The change adds a new review-collateral entry to `explainScoreBreakdown` and covers baseline, elevated, capped, and leverage-order behavior in unit tests. The wiring is additive and uses fields already present on `ScorePreviewResult.gates`, then passes the new summary and lever through the existing sanitization path. I do not see a reachable break in the supplied files; the main cleanup is making the public wording less enum-like.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• nit: `src/services/score-breakdown.ts:203` and `src/services/score-breakdown.ts:205` expose `CHANGES_REQUESTED` in user-facing prose while the surrounding breakdown copy otherwise uses plain-language review wording.
• `src/services/score-breakdown.ts:203` should say "requested-changes reviews" or "reviews requesting changes" instead of the raw review-state token, and `test/unit/score-breakdown.test.ts:254` should assert the plain-language wording.
• `src/services/score-breakdown.ts:199` uses a hard-coded `1.01` materiality threshold; add a short comment explaining the tolerance or compare directly to the baseline if upstream already emits discrete multiplier steps.
• Readiness score is below the configured threshold — Use the readiness panel as advisory maintainer context; the score does not block this PR.
• Touches a guarded path — held for manual review — A maintainer must review and merge this change.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
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 (size label size:S; no linked issue context).
Validation posture	❌ 5/25	Preflight is holding this PR; address the blocker before review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 91 registered-repo PR(s), 61 merged, 5 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	andriypolanski; Gittensor profile; 91 PR(s), 5 issue(s).
Gate result	⚠️ Not blocking	Advisory; not blocking this PR.

Review context

• Author: andriypolanski
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 91 PR(s), 5 issue(s).
• Related work: Items reference the same linked issue feat(enrichment): Churn-hotspot + bug-density scorer #1513. (issue #1513, PR #1882)
• Related work: Open PR work references issue feat(enrichment): Churn-hotspot + bug-density scorer #1513. (issue #1513, PR #1882)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 5 meaningful terms. (issue #1477, PR #1882)
• Additional title-only matches omitted; title-only overlap does not block.

Contributor next steps

• Explain no-issue PR.
• Review top overlaps.
• Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Fix the blocker.
• Triage stale or unlinked PRs.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.
• Check active issues and PRs before submitting.

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.

_{🟩 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 Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review