feat(mcp): add follow-up issue local-write action spec (#2177)

[kiannidev]

Summary

Closes #2177.

Adds buildFollowUpIssueSpec in src/mcp/local-write-tools.ts to compose a public-safe follow-up issue title/body from a deferred review finding, strip HTML comment markers, bound title/body length, and delegate to the existing buildFileIssueSpec / gh issue create shape with optional point-bearing labels. Structured inputs.finding is sanitized before return so harnesses cannot emit hidden comment text into public issues.

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked an issue, or this is small enough that the summary explains why an issue is not needed.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage locally; codecov/patch requires ≥99% coverage of the lines AND branches you changed (aim for 100% on your diff so CI variance does not fail near the threshold). Global coverage is a non-blocking trend with a loose 90% backstop, not the gate.
• 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
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• Prior attempt feat(mcp): add follow-up issue local-write action spec (#2177) #3832 was auto-closed for missing Closes #2177 wording and unsanitized inputs.finding; both are fixed here.

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots arranged as organized, captioned, clickable thumbnails. SVG screenshots are not used as review evidence. Review-only screenshots or recordings are not committed to the repository.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

UI Evidence

N/A — backend-only MCP local-write helper; no visible UI change.

Notes

• Conflict check: open PRs touch commands.ts, processors.ts, and focus-manifest.ts; this PR only changes local-write-tools.ts and its unit tests.

Made with Cursor

[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 93.41%. Comparing base (ca6a6d7) to head (9a25573).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3836   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.41%   93.41%           
=======================================
  Files         326      326           
  Lines       32855    32887   +32     
  Branches    12035    12044    +9     
=======================================
+ Hits        30691    30723   +32     
  Misses       1530     1530           
  Partials      634      634           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/mcp/local-write-tools.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[loopover-orb]

Tip

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

✅ Gittensory review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-06 14:49:42 UTC}

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

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This adds `buildFollowUpIssueSpec` to compose a sanitized title/body for a deferred-review-finding issue and delegates to the existing `buildFileIssueSpec`/`gh issue create` shape, consistent with the other local-write builders in this file. The HTML-comment-stripping and length-bounding logic is correct for the tested cases, sanitization of `inputs.finding` before return correctly prevents raw hidden-comment text from leaking into the structured output, and the diff is fully covered by five new unit tests exercising labels-present/absent, marker-stripping, title truncation, and body truncation branches. One real design flaw: `composeFollowUpIssueBody` reuses `boundFollowUpLine` (which collapses all whitespace, including newlines, to single spaces) for both `finding.detail` and `finding.action`, so any multi-line/multi-paragraph finding detail will be flattened into one line in the issue body — likely unintended given `detail` is meant to carry a fuller explanation, not a single line like a title.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• local-write-tools.ts:64 (`composeFollowUpIssueBody`) uses `boundFollowUpLine`, which strips all newlines via `\s+` collapsing, for `finding.detail`/`finding.action` — any multi-line finding detail loses its paragraph structure in the issue body; consider a `boundFollowUpBody`-style bound that preserves internal newlines for these fields.
• local-write-tools.ts:87 hardcodes the `500` character cap for `finding.action` inline; consider a named constant (e.g. `FOLLOW_UP_ISSUE_ACTION_MAX`) alongside `FOLLOW_UP_ISSUE_TITLE_MAX`/`FOLLOW_UP_ISSUE_BODY_MAX` for consistency and easier tuning.
• stripFollowUpMarkers's `/<!--[\s\S]*?-->/g` only strips well-formed, closed HTML comments — an unterminated `<!--` in attacker-influenced `finding.title`/`detail` would pass through unstripped and could still be rendered as a hidden/comment block by some Markdown renderers; worth a quick check that this matches the sanitization guarantee the PR description claims.
• sanitizeFollowUpFinding re-derives `title`/`detail` via a second call to `stripFollowUpMarkers` even though `composeFollowUpIssueTitle`/`composeFollowUpIssueBody` already stripped markers earlier in the same function — harmless but slightly redundant; could thread the already-cleaned values through instead of recomputing.
• Preserve newlines when bounding `finding.detail`/`finding.action` in the body (local-write-tools.ts:64-70) instead of routing them through the single-line-oriented `boundFollowUpLine`.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#2177
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: 1512 registered-repo PR(s), 796 merged, 47 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	kiannidev; Gittensor profile; 1512 PR(s), 47 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

Review context

• Author: kiannidev
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: TypeScript, MDX, C++, HTML, Rust
• Official Gittensor activity: 1512 PR(s), 47 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

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 approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.