fix(review): replay linked issue one-shot blockers

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• One-shot review cadence could skip re-running linked-issue satisfaction checks by only testing for a cached row, which suppressed replaying prior linked_issue_scope_mismatch findings and allowed a previously-blocked PR to become unblocked on later automatic triggers.
• The change must preserve the one-shot cost behavior (no fresh model call) while ensuring block-mode blockers are replayed into the advisory so gate evaluation remains correct.

Description

• Add getLatestPublishedLinkedIssueSatisfaction to src/db/repositories.ts to fetch the latest stored linked-issue satisfaction row for a given (repo, pull, linked issue) regardless of head SHA or fingerprint.
• In src/queue/processors.ts update the one-shot linked-issue skip path to call getLatestPublishedLinkedIssueSatisfaction and, when a prior ok result exists, reuse its verdict and push a linked_issue_scope_mismatch finding into advisory.findings when the prior verdict was unaddressed and the repo is in block mode.
• Add unit coverage for the new cache helper in test/unit/linked-issue-satisfaction-cache.test.ts and a regression test in test/unit/queue.test.ts asserting a repeat one-shot trigger does not spend a fresh LLM call but still produces a gate failure via the cached linked_issue_scope_mismatch blocker.
• Wire the new helper into the processors import list and keep existing audit-event behaviour for one-shot skips.

Testing

• Ran the targeted Vitest suites: npm exec vitest run test/unit/linked-issue-satisfaction-cache.test.ts test/unit/queue.test.ts -- -t "linked-issue satisfaction cache|hasPublishedLinkedIssueSatisfaction|getLatestPublishedLinkedIssueSatisfaction|one-shot AI review cadence", and the tests passed.
• Ran type checking with npm run typecheck, which completed successfully.
• The change includes the new unit tests that exercise both the cache helper and the regression scenario and they pass under the local test run.

---

Codex Task

[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 94.22%. Comparing base (3ae7ece) to head (c3f9813).
⚠️ Report is 7 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4732   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.22%   94.22%           
=======================================
  Files         441      441           
  Lines       38741    38749    +8     
  Branches    14117    14120    +3     
=======================================
+ Hits        36504    36512    +8     
  Misses       1577     1577           
  Partials      660      660           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/db/repositories.ts	96.72% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/queue/processors.ts	95.71% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-11 00:27:06 UTC}

4 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI green · 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.

Review summary
This fix correctly closes a real gap: the one-shot review-cadence skip path only checked for the *existence* of a cached linked-issue-satisfaction row (hasPublishedLinkedIssueSatisfaction) and never replayed the stored verdict, so a PR previously blocked by a `linked_issue_scope_mismatch` finding could silently unblock on a later automatic re-evaluation. The new getLatestPublishedLinkedIssueSatisfaction (src/db/repositories.ts) and its wiring into the one-shot skip branch (src/queue/processors.ts) correctly reuse the frozen first-pass verdict without spending a fresh AI call, and only push the blocker finding when gate mode is block and the stored result is unaddressed. The regression test in test/unit/queue.test.ts exercises the real production path (seeds a cached unaddressed row, drives a real agent-regate-pr job, asserts zero AI calls and a failure gate outcome containing linked_issue_scope_mismatch), which is genuine coverage rather than a fabricated scenario.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• codecov/patch is 87.50% against a 99% target, and the visible gaps are real branches: no test for priorLinkedIssueSatisfaction being null/non-"ok" (the .catch(() => null) or non-ok status arm), no test for result.status === "addressed" in block mode (finding must not be pushed), and no test for gateMode !== "block" with an unaddressed prior verdict (verdict reused for display but no finding pushed) — all three arms are visibly branched on in src/queue/processors.ts and should be covered.
• The ORDER BY created_at DESC, head_sha DESC tiebreak in getLatestPublishedLinkedIssueSatisfaction (src/db/repositories.ts) is arbitrary lexical ordering on ties; an autoincrement rowid/id DESC tiebreak would be less surprising if two rows share a created_at timestamp.
• The PR description does not name or link an eligible open JSONbored/gittensory issue that this fix closes — worth confirming this is tied to a maintainer-authorized issue per repo convention before treating it as merge-ready.
• Add the three missing-branch test cases called out above to close the codecov/patch gap.
• Consider an explicit id/rowid tiebreaker in the ORDER BY clause in src/db/repositories.ts for determinism on same-timestamp rows.

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: 48 registered-repo PR(s), 40 merged, 275 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 48 PR(s), 275 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: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 48 PR(s), 275 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