fix(agent-actions): apply account-age throttle on issue contributor-cap path

[RealDiligent]

Summary

Completes the issue-path half of account-age throttle (#2561). Supersedes closed #3374, #3388, #3405.

Fix

• Wire accountAgeThresholdDays into issue contributor-cap path and label newly opened issues
• Match PR-path v8 ignore on label catch + defensive no-slash repoOwner branch (codecov/patch)
• Tests: tighten cap, established account, off-by-default, non-auto label, fail-open, custom label, owner/admin/bot exemption

Test plan

• npm run typecheck
• npm run selfhost:env-reference:check
• 9 issue-path account-age unit tests pass locally

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

🛑 Gittensory review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-05 06:56:53 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 80/100 · CI failing · unstable

🛑 Suggested Action - Fix Blockers

Review summary
This change wires account-age throttling into the issue contributor-cap path and adds issue-side labeling for below-threshold accounts, with tests covering the main cap-tightening, exemption, fail-open, and custom-label cases. The core behavior matches the PR-path contract visible in the diff: account age only tightens an existing contributor cap and never closes solely on age. I did not find a reachable correctness blocker in the provided diff, but the implementation now duplicates the same account-age fetch/date math in two issue-path sites, which is worth tightening before this grows further.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• nit: src/queue/processors.ts:4828 and src/queue/processors.ts:5645 duplicate the same `getGithubUserCreatedAt` plus age-days calculation, so extract or reuse a small helper to keep the issue and PR paths from drifting.
• nit: src/queue/processors.ts:4833 and src/queue/processors.ts:5651 repeat the day-to-milliseconds literal; use an existing constant if one exists, or add a local `MS_PER_DAY` to make the threshold math harder to misread.
• nit: src/queue/processors.ts:5628 adds a fairly deep nested block for issue labeling; an early-return helper would make the exemption, threshold, autonomy, and action-mode checks easier to audit in this hot path.
• src/queue/processors.ts:4828: factor the account-age decision into a helper such as `isBelowAccountAgeThreshold(env, installationId, authorLogin, thresholdDays)` and call it from both the close path and label path.
• src/queue/processors.ts:5628: consider moving the new issue-labeling block into a named helper mirroring the PR-path implementation so future parity changes have one obvious place to review.

CI checks failing

• codecov/patch — 96.29% of diff hit (target 99.00%)

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#3374
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	❌ 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: 132 registered-repo PR(s), 17 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	RealDiligent; Gittensor profile; 132 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

Review context

• Author: RealDiligent
• 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: 132 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Await review-lane availability.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.

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

❌ Patch coverage is 96.29630% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 93.46%. Comparing base (4dc106e) to head (38c77dd).
⚠️ Report is 16 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/queue/processors.ts	96.29%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (96.29%) is below the target coverage (99.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3423   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.46%   93.46%           
=======================================
  Files         289      289           
  Lines       30784    30810   +26     
  Branches    11220    11232   +12     
=======================================
+ Hits        28773    28798   +25     
  Misses       1355     1355           
- Partials      656      657    +1     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/queue/processors.ts	93.06% <96.29%> (+0.03%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[loopover-orb]

Gittensory is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (CI is failing (codecov/patch)). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.