fix(queue): cap contributor PR live checks

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• Prevent an availability/resource-exhaustion regression where a single webhook could walk an unbounded same-author PR set and generate O(N) GitHub live reads and O(N) sibling wake jobs.
• Preserve the existing "oldest PRs win" duplicate-winner semantics while bounding per-webhook work so an attacker cannot amplify API/queue usage by creating many PRs.

Description

• Add a fixed 100-row cap to the author-scoped sibling query in src/db/repositories.ts so the author-scoped sample is limited and still ordered by ascending PR number (listOtherOpenPullRequestsForAuthor).
• Update explanatory comments in src/queue/processors.ts to document the fixed-budget author-scoped sample plus the existing bounded concurrency (CONTRIBUTOR_CAP_LIVE_CHECK_CONCURRENCY = 10).
• Add a regression unit test in test/unit/duplicate-winner.test.ts that verifies the author-scoped query filters by author/self and returns the lowest 100 same-author siblings while excluding unrelated PRs and the subject PR.

Testing

• Ran focused unit tests for the changed behavior with npx vitest run test/unit/duplicate-winner.test.ts -t "author-scoped contributor-cap", which passed.
• Exercised the contributor-cap related suite with npx vitest run test/unit/duplicate-winner.test.ts test/unit/queue.test.ts -t "contributor open-PR cap|listOtherOpenPullRequests", and the focused tests covering the modified paths passed.
• npm run typecheck completed successfully, while a full npm run test:coverage attempt aborted due to an existing RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded in the large test/unit/queue.test.ts run (this is an existing suite recursion encountered while running the full coverage job, not introduced by these changes).
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate could not complete due to the npm registry audit endpoint returning 403 Forbidden in this environment.

---

Codex Task

[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: 2026-07-07 06:52:06 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

Review summary
This PR adds a fixed LIMIT 100 to the ascending-PR-number-ordered author-scoped sibling query (`listOtherOpenPullRequestsForAuthor` in src/db/repositories.ts) and updates surrounding comments in src/queue/processors.ts to describe the resulting fixed-budget sample instead of the previous unbounded scan, closing a real O(N) GitHub-live-read / sibling-wake amplification vector. The change is narrow, preserves "oldest PRs win" semantics (ORDER BY ascending PR number, then LIMIT), and is backed by a new regression test that inserts 103 same-author PRs (including one inserted out of order) plus unrelated-author and subject-PR rows, and asserts the returned set is exactly the lowest 100 same-author siblings. The test exercises the real repository function against a real test DB rather than a mock, so it's a legitimate regression guard, not a fabricated one.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• The 100-row cap is applied at the query layer, but the diff doesn't show whether `contributorOpenPrCap` config validation enforces an upper bound below 100 — if an operator ever configured a cap above 100, the fixed-budget sample would silently undercount true open-sibling count for very prolific authors; worth a comment or validation guard confirming this is intentionally out of realistic range.
• The comment updates (e.g. src/queue/processors.ts around the mapWithConcurrency block) are informative but slightly redundant across three separate locations describing the same fixed-budget rationale — could consolidate into one canonical explanation with the others referencing it.
• Consider asserting in the new test (test/unit/duplicate-winner.test.ts) that the returned siblings are also correctly ordered ascending for the full 100 (not just spot-checking the first element and absence of feat(mcp): ingest GitHub CI status hints for local branches #102), to fully pin the ordering contract the cap depends on.
• If `contributorOpenPrCap` is user/config-configurable, add an explicit clamp or validation note near its schema/config definition referencing the new 100-row query cap in src/db/repositories.ts so the two stay in sync if either changes independently.

Concerns raised — review before merging

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
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 (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 51 registered-repo PR(s), 43 merged, 343 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 51 PR(s), 343 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, TypeScript, JavaScript, Ruby, Go, Kotlin, MDX, Shell
• Official Gittensor activity: 51 PR(s), 343 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Explain no-issue PR.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.

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 93.57%. Comparing base (bfe55f6) to head (26fb411).
⚠️ Report is 6 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3911   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.57%   93.57%           
=======================================
  Files         340      340           
  Lines       33516    33516           
  Branches    12262    12262           
=======================================
  Hits        31364    31364           
  Misses       1528     1528           
  Partials      624      624           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/db/repositories.ts	96.61% <ø> (ø)
src/queue/processors.ts	94.53% <ø> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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