fix(signals): classify C# and Dart gRPC service stubs as generated

[jimcody1995]

Summary

Extend isGeneratedFile to recognize:

• Dart gRPC service stubs (.pbgrpc.dart) so generated Dart gRPC output is not misclassified as hand-authored source under the .dart code extension.
• grpc-dotnet service stubs (*Grpc.cs) for parity with existing Java *Grpc.java, Kotlin GrpcKt.kt, and Swift .grpc.swift matchers.

Includes positive/negative isGeneratedFile / classifyChangedFile assertions and classification-table entries.

Fixes #3724

Scope

• Conventional Commit title format.
• Focused — path-matchers + unit tests only.
• Follows CONTRIBUTING.md.
• Linked open issue (fix(signals): exclude generated Dart part files from code scoring #3724: generated Dart output must not be treated as source).

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run test:ci on Node 22
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate — 0 vulnerabilities
• Unit tests cover isGeneratedFile, classifyChangedFile, and the representative cases table

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• None skipped.

Safety

• No secrets, auth, or UI changes.
• N/A for UI Evidence.

UI Evidence

N/A — signals-only change with no visible UI.

Notes

Advances #3724 by closing a generated-Dart gap: .pbgrpc.dart gRPC stubs now classify as generated via isGeneratedFile / classifyChangedFile, alongside existing .g.dart / .freezed.dart / .gr.dart recognition. C# *Grpc.cs is the same class of grpc-plugin service stub parity in the shared path-matcher module.

Does not change isCodeFile / MCP scoring mirrors — those are covered by the separate open PR for #3724 on local-branch.ts.

Conflict avoidance: Touches only src/signals/path-matchers.ts and test/unit/path-matchers.test.ts. Zero overlap with open PRs (#3724 local-branch scoring, #3718 finding severity floor, #3712 visual shot bounds, #3704 miner calibration types, #3702 miner README, #3698 ignored-author gate).

Made with Cursor

[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: 2026-07-06 06:42:25 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 80/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This diff adds two narrow regex matchers to isGeneratedFileFrom in src/signals/path-matchers.ts: `/grpc\.cs$/` for grpc-dotnet service stubs and `/\.pbgrpc\.dart$/` for Dart gRPC stubs, directly paralleling the existing Java/Kotlin/Swift gRPC stub matchers just above them. Since isGeneratedFileFrom is checked before isCodeFile in classifyChangedFile, these new matches correctly take precedence over the `.cs`/`.dart` code-extension classification, and the added positive/negative unit tests plus classification-table entries exercise both the new matches and the surrounding non-matching cases (`src/Greeter.cs`, `lib/user.dart`). The change is narrowly scoped to the stated issue (#3724), touches only the two files described in the PR body, and follows the exact convention of the pre-existing `grpc\.java$`/`grpckt\.kt$` matchers.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• `/grpc\.cs$/` (src/signals/path-matchers.ts) has no boundary before 'grpc', so any hand-written file merely named e.g. `FooGrpc.cs` without being an actual grpc-dotnet stub would also classify as generated — this mirrors the pre-existing `grpc\.java$`/`grpckt\.kt$` matchers' same lack of boundary, so it's a pattern-consistency nit rather than a new defect.
• The comment block above the regex list was extended appropriately, but consider a shared word-boundary/prefix convention comment (e.g. noting the plugin naming convention like `<ServiceName>Grpc.<ext>`) so future contributors don't need to infer intent from analogy alone.
• None beyond the nits above — the diff is minimal, consistent with existing conventions, and adequately tested.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#3724
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: 118 registered-repo PR(s), 84 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	jimcody1995; Gittensor profile; 118 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

Review context

• Author: jimcody1995
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: TypeScript, JavaScript
• Official Gittensor activity: 118 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

[loopover-orb]

Gittensory is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (Linked issue #3724 is assigned to the maintainer (@JSONbored) — that work is reserved for the maintainer, so this PR cannot be auto-accepted.). 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.