fix(review): rename ev: log keys to event: for Loki/Sentry visibility

[JSONbored]

Summary

Closes #4001.

• The structured-logging convention expects an event: key so log lines are queryable in Loki and forwarded correctly by the Sentry forwarder.
• ~60 sites across src/review, src/services, src/db, and src/queue used the shorthand ev: instead, making them invisible to both.
• A handful of sites already had a distinct event: key in the same object literal; those got a semantically specific name (errorType:, auditEventType:) instead of a colliding rename — except sites where event: and ev: both already coexisted deliberately (e.g. src/review/rag.ts's error logs, which keep a distinct ev: sub-code alongside the pre-existing event: classification for log continuity), which were left untouched.

Test plan

• npm run typecheck — clean
• npx vitest run test/unit/queue.test.ts — 671/671 passed
• npx vitest run across all 17 touched files' corresponding test files — 475/475 passed
• Repo-wide grep confirms zero remaining ev: log-key sites that needed renaming

[superagent-security]

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 85.71429% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 93.58%. Comparing base (bb7f8ed) to head (5fde4de).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/review/visual/preview-url.ts	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
src/review/visual/shot.ts	86.66%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4037   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.58%   93.58%           
=======================================
  Files         382      382           
  Lines       35532    35532           
  Branches    13028    13028           
=======================================
  Hits        33251    33251           
  Misses       1618     1618           
  Partials      663      663           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/db/repositories.ts	96.62% <100.00%> (ø)
src/queue/processors.ts	94.86% <ø> (ø)
src/review/alerts.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/review/auto-apply.ts	98.19% <100.00%> (ø)
src/review/auto-tune.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/review/linked-issue-label-propagation-fetch.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/review/outcomes-wire.ts	88.80% <100.00%> (ø)
src/review/parity-wire.ts	96.29% <100.00%> (ø)
src/review/prompt-injection.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/review/rag-index.ts	93.46% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 7 more

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

🛑 Gittensory review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-07 12:54:33 UTC}

17 files · 2 blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI failing · unstable

🛑 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.

Nits — 1 non-blocking

• Code changes lack test evidence — Add focused regression tests or explain why existing coverage is sufficient.

Why this is blocked

• 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.

CI checks failing

• codecov/patch — 85.71% of diff hit (target 99.00%)

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 blockers	No AI review summary
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, 570 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 51 PR(s), 570 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), 570 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