chore(types): mark gateCheckMode @deprecated at every declaration site

[JSONbored]

Summary

Stage 1 of #5373's two-stage plan (gateCheckMode is a computed read-back of reviewCheckMode, deprecated since #4618).

• Reduce redundant config surface: linked-issue knob, gateCheckMode, label fields #4618 already made gateCheckMode derived-only with narrative comments explaining it in most places, but several public-surface type declarations never got an explicit @deprecated marker on the field itself: RepositorySettings (src/types.ts), GithubAppBehavior (registration-readiness.ts), the settings-preview response shape, MaintainerActivationPreview.currentGateMode, the gittensory-engine package's own RepositorySettings copy, and all 4 OpenAPI response schema definitions. Added @deprecated (or a matching plain comment where the file has no JSDoc-tag precedent, i.e. the Zod schema file) at each site pointing to reviewCheckMode.
• Found and removed one genuinely dead field along the way: the UI's local ActivationResponse.gateCheckMode was declared but never read anywhere in activation-preview.tsx -- confirmed via grep, removed from both the type and its test fixture.
• No behavior change: verified the regenerated openapi.json is byte-identical (plain comments only, no .describe()/.openapi() metadata added).

Stage 2 (the actual DB column + full removal, 447 occurrences across 48 files) is intentionally out of scope here and tracked separately per #5373.

Test plan

• npm run typecheck
• npm run ui:typecheck
• npm run ui:lint
• npm run docs:drift-check
• npm run ui:openapi:check (confirms zero drift -- plain comments don't affect the generated schema)
• test/unit/registration-readiness.test.ts, test/unit/repo-policy-readiness.test.ts, test/unit/settings-preview.test.ts, test/unit/maintainer-settings-preview-ui.test.ts, test/unit/backfill.test.ts, test/unit/backfill-2.test.ts, and the UI's activation-preview test -- all green

[superagent-security]

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

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying with    Cloudflare Workers

The latest updates on your project. Learn more about integrating Git with Workers.

Status	Name	Latest Commit	Preview URL	Updated (UTC)
✅ Deployment successful! View logs	gittensory-ui	94ed64e	Commit Preview URL Branch Preview URL	Jul 12 2026, 07:22 PM

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.42%. Comparing base (156b382) to head (94ed64e).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5430      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   94.46%   94.42%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         554      554              
  Lines       44426    44426              
  Branches    14663    14663              
==========================================
- Hits        41967    41950      -17     
- Misses       1784     1801      +17     
  Partials      675      675              

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	44.11% <ø> (ø)
shard-2	34.82% <ø> (+0.06%)	⬆️
shard-3	31.98% <ø> (+0.39%)	⬆️
shard-4	31.69% <ø> (+0.28%)	⬆️
shard-5	32.71% <ø> (-0.57%)	⬇️
shard-6	43.26% <ø> (-0.12%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/openapi/schemas.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/services/maintainer-activation.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/signals/registration-readiness.ts	98.55% <ø> (ø)
src/signals/settings-preview.ts	98.63% <ø> (ø)
src/types.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 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: 2026-07-12 19:26:22 UTC}

8 files · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · readiness 100/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This is a pure documentation/annotation PR that adds @​deprecated JSDoc comments (or matching plain comments in the Zod schema file) to the gateCheckMode field across 7 public-surface type declarations, plus removes one genuinely dead field (ActivationResponse.gateCheckMode in activation-preview.tsx, confirmed unused via grep and removed from both the type and its test fixture). The changes are comment-only additions with no logic changes, consistent with the PR's claim that the regenerated openapi.json is byte-identical. The activation-preview.tsx removal is correctly scoped -- the file's ActivationPreviewResponse still retains currentGateMode (used at line 145 to render the gate status pill), so only the truly dead ActivationResponse.gateCheckMode was removed.

Nits — 6 non-blocking

• The 'validate' and 'validate-tests (4)' CI checks are listed as FAILED -- worth confirming these aren't related to the dead-field removal in activation-preview.tsx before merging, since that's the only behavioral (non-comment) change in the diff.
• No new test coverage was added despite the stated intent of a zero-behavior-change PR; the removed field in the test fixture (activation-preview.test.tsx) is the only test touched, which is appropriate but leaves nothing asserting the deprecation comments themselves (not typically testable, so this is a very minor nit).
• Double-check the two failing 'validate'/'validate-tests (4)' CI jobs aren't flagging the ActivationResponse.gateCheckMode removal as a snapshot/type mismatch somewhere not shown in this diff.
• nit: src/openapi/schemas.ts:672 uses plain comments inside Zod schema objects, so generated OpenAPI consumers will not receive a machine-readable deprecation marker; that matches the stated no-drift intent, but the PR text should avoid implying generated API metadata changed.
• src/openapi/schemas.ts:672: either keep the current plain-comment approach and describe it explicitly as source-only documentation, or add generated OpenAPI deprecation metadata in the later removal plan if external clients need machine-readable notice.
• Code changes lack test evidence — Add focused regression tests or explain why existing coverage is sufficient.

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.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

Fix the following blocker(s) from this PR review:

1. No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 1 blocker	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ No-issue rationale	PR body explains why no issue is linked.
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: 44 registered-repo PR(s), 36 merged, 457 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 44 PR(s), 457 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.
Improvement	⚠️ ℹ️ None detected	risk: low · value: none — No structural-improvement signals were detected for this PR.

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: 44 PR(s), 457 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.

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.

[BETA] Chat with Gittensory

Ask Gittensory a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @gittensory ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @gittensory chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @gittensory mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically -- no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://gittensory.aethereal.dev/docs/gittensory-commands

Visual preview

Route	Viewport	Before (production)	After (this PR's preview)	Diff
/	desktop			—
/	mobile			—

Click any thumbnail to open the full-size screenshot. Before = production · After = this PR's preview deploy.

_{🟩 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