feat(api): add post-merge incident reporting for already-merged PRs

[nghetienhiep]

Adds a reporting path for the case where an already-merged rented-loop
PR is later found harmful: a repo-maintainer route
(POST /v1/repos/:owner/:repo/pulls/:number/incident-reports) and an
internal-operator route (POST /v1/app/incident-reports), both writing
a queryable audit_events row via a shared recordPostMergeIncidentReport
helper. Reports are keyed to the PR's repo#number targetKey, so the
existing agent/audit-feed ?pull=N view already surfaces them back to
maintainers with no separate table or read route needed.

Closes #5672

[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 95.07%. Comparing base (210a8b1) to head (f6fbe0c).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5766   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.07%   95.07%           
=======================================
  Files         582      582           
  Lines       46183    46221   +38     
  Branches    14812    14823   +11     
=======================================
+ Hits        43907    43945   +38     
  Misses       1516     1516           
  Partials      760      760           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.40% <18.42%> (-0.55%)	⬇️
shard-2	36.01% <94.73%> (+0.27%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.19% <18.42%> (-0.07%)	⬇️
shard-4	32.82% <18.42%> (-0.13%)	⬇️
shard-5	31.33% <15.78%> (-0.41%)	⬇️
shard-6	44.98% <21.05%> (+0.32%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/api/routes.ts	94.43% <100.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️
src/db/repositories.ts	96.71% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/openapi/spec.ts	99.42% <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]

Tip

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-14 13:08:42 UTC}

5 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 95/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
Adds two new incident-reporting POST routes (customer-facing repo-scoped and internal-operator) that both persist through a shared recordPostMergeIncidentReport helper into audit_events, reusing the existing repo#number targetKey so the audit-feed already surfaces reports without a new table. The wiring is consistent end-to-end (schema validation, mergedSha regex, merged-check via pullRequest.mergedAt, session actor resolution, path added to canSessionAccessPath), openapi.json and spec.ts are kept in sync, and the test suite exercises both routes' happy paths, 400/404/409 cases, and auth boundaries against real D1-backed test env, not fabricated payloads. This is a DB-only audit_events write with no new table/columns, so no migration is needed, and the change is well-scoped to the linked issue.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• src/api/routes.ts: the mergedSha regex `/^[0-9a-f]{7,40}$/i` in both postMergeIncidentReportSchema and operatorPostMergeIncidentReportSchema is duplicated verbatim — consider factoring into a shared schema fragment.
• External brief flags many numeric literals (4000, 200, 409, etc.) as unexplained magic numbers; these are self-evident HTTP status codes and field length limits and don't warrant named constants.
• src/db/repositories.ts: recordPostMergeIncidentReport's JSDoc says 'no separate table -- this event type is the sole persistence layer,' which is accurate but worth double-checking that listAuditEventsForTarget's response shape doesn't need a severity/reporterKind-specific projection for the UI to render these usefully.
• Consider a shared zod schema for the description/severity/mergedSha fields between postMergeIncidentReportSchema and operatorPostMergeIncidentReportSchema (src/api/routes.ts:893-916) to avoid drift if validation rules change.
• Confirm the linked issue Post-merge incident audit-trail & reporting wiring #5672 is fully closed by this PR (external brief notes 'partial' coverage) — if there's a read-side requirement beyond the existing ?pull=N audit feed, call that out explicitly in the PR description.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#5672
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	⚠️ 20/25	Preflight is ready, but the PR body does not name the validation run.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 10 registered-repo PR(s), 4 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	nghetienhiep; Gittensor profile; 10 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor — Code changes are accompanied by test evidence. LLM value judgment: moderate — The PR adds a narrowly-scoped, well-tested operator/customer reporting path directly tied to issue #5672, reusing existing audit-event infrastructure rather than introducing new storage, which is a targeted and low-risk improvement to the review-engine's incident-handling surface.

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds both a customer-facing route (POST /v1/repos/:owner/:repo/pulls/:number/incident-reports, gated by requireRepoMaintainer) and an internal-operator route (POST /v1/app/incident-reports, gated by operator role), both writing a complete audit_events row via a shared recordPostMergeIncidentReport helper keyed to repo#pull, with merged-state validation and extensive tests covering both path

Review context

• Author: nghetienhiep
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 10 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Add validation command/output.

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 LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

Gittensory approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.