feat(miner): add reject render CLI for courtesy notes

[kiannidev]

Summary

• Add gittensory-miner reject render to print CoC-compliant courtesy notes from the existing rejection-templates module (feat(miner-manage): CoC-compliant rejection message templates #2324).
• Add gittensory-miner reject reasons to list valid reason buckets for scripting (--json supported on both).
• Parse errors and template validation failures return exit code 2 without throwing through the bin entrypoint.

No-issue rationale

Follow-up wiring for the already-merged rejection template library (#2804): exposes the pure renderer as a shell command for local miner harnesses without adding GitHub write actions.

Test plan

• npm test -- test/unit/miner-cli-rejection-render.test.ts test/unit/miner-rejection-templates.test.ts
• npm run build --workspace @jsonbored/gittensory-miner
• npm run typecheck
• CI + Orb gate green on upstream

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-05 00:49:14 UTC}

6 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 55/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• Touches a guarded path — held for manual review

Review summary
The change cleanly exposes the existing rejection-template renderer through `gittensory-miner reject render` and adds a small `reasons` helper, with parse errors and renderer validation mapped to exit code 2 as described. The new bin dispatch is wired into the existing opportunistic update-check flow, and the package build script now syntax-checks the new module. I do not see a reachable correctness defect in the provided files.

Nits — 6 non-blocking

• nit: packages/gittensory-miner/lib/rejection-render.js:122 reports only the render usage for an unknown `reject` subcommand, so `gittensory-miner reject wat` hides the valid `reasons` subcommand; change the message to a reject-level usage string or explain why only render help is intentional.
• nit: test/unit/miner-cli-rejection-render.test.ts:45 covers the library entrypoints but not the actual bin dispatch path added in packages/gittensory-miner/bin/gittensory-miner.js:89; add one `runCapture(["reject", "reasons"])`-style test so the CLI wiring is protected like the existing top-level commands.
• packages/gittensory-miner/lib/rejection-render.js:4 could define a separate `REJECT_USAGE = "Usage: gittensory-miner reject <render|reasons> ..."` and use it from `runRejectCli` for unknown subcommands.
• test/unit/miner-cli-rejection-render.test.ts:45 should include at least one spawned/bin-level assertion for `reject render` or `reject reasons` so future dispatch changes cannot strand the new module.
• 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	⚠️ 1 scoped overlap	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	❌ 5/25	Preflight is holding this PR: the review lane is unavailable, so it is not ready for automated review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 1313 registered-repo PR(s), 629 merged, 49 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	kiannidev; Gittensor profile; 1313 PR(s), 49 issue(s).
Gate result	⚠️ Not blocking	Advisory; not blocking this PR.

Review context

• Author: kiannidev
• 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: 1313 PR(s), 49 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 5 meaningful terms. (issue #1683, issue #1681)

Contributor next steps

• Explain no-issue PR.
• Review top overlaps.
• Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Await review-lane availability.
• 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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.13%. Comparing base (d9dfcf8) to head (db0cbe1).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3278   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.13%   94.13%           
=======================================
  Files         276      276           
  Lines       30204    30204           
  Branches    11011    11011           
=======================================
  Hits        28432    28432           
  Misses       1127     1127           
  Partials      645      645           

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[JSONbored]

Please focus on outstanding issues instead.