docs(spec): idea-intake bridge schema

[lourincedaging0-commits]

Closes #4779. Single doc file (packages/loopover-miner/docs/idea-intake-bridge-schema.md), written spec only — no code.

Defines the interface turning a freeform renter idea into a structured, claimable task-graph:

• Idea submission schema — the raw input fields (title/body/targetRepo/constraints/acceptanceHints), bounded + public-safe, priority advisory-only (never maps to the maintainer-propagated gittensor:priority).
• Translation rules — idea → TaskGraph of constituent issues, each with testable, implementation-agnostic acceptance criteria and dependsOn ordering; type labels inferred, priority never emitted.
• Scoring rubric — reuses the existing feasibility gate (packages/loopover-engine/src/feasibility.ts): each issue is scored via the exact FeasibilityGateInput discriminants (claimStatus/duplicateClusterRisk/issueStatus/found) that buildFeasibilityVerdict already consumes, graph disposition = least-favorable go/raise/avoid (precedence inherited, no parallel decision path).
• Two worked examples traced end-to-end (single-issue go; a dependency chain that correctly raises the held downstream issue).

Concrete enough for the freeform feasibility scoring in #5671 to implement against (which it currently blocks).

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Tip

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-14 15:28:10 UTC}

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

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This is a pure documentation PR adding a written spec for the idea-intake bridge that translates freeform renter ideas into a scored task-graph. It correctly reuses the existing feasibility gate's discriminants and precedence (avoid > raise > go) without introducing a parallel decision path, explicitly excludes gittensor:priority from renter/bridge control, and includes two worked examples that trace correctly through the stated rubric. No code is touched, so there's no correctness or wiring risk to verify beyond internal consistency of the spec itself, which holds up.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• The spec references `ScoringRubric` and `linkedIssues` fields in the TaskGraph/design-constraints prose but never defines their shape, unlike every other type in §2 — worth a one-line stub or explicit 'left to Adapt feasibility-cli.js scoring for freeform idea text #5671' note.
• The acceptance-criteria checklist at the bottom self-certifies against Idea-intake bridge schema #4779's items; consider having the issue reporter or a second reviewer confirm rather than the author marking all boxes.
• Add a brief note on how `id` in `IdeaSubmission` and `key` in `ConstituentIssue` are generated/validated for uniqueness, since Adapt feasibility-cli.js scoring for freeform idea text #5671 will need to rely on that guarantee.
• Consider linking §3's discriminant table rows directly to the corresponding `feasibility.ts` reason codes (as done for `avoid`/`raise` cases) for `issueStatus = ready`, for full traceability.
• Diff looks like trivial or whitespace-only churn — Reduce whitespace-only or formatting-only churn and keep the diff focused on substantive changes.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#4779
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: 0 registered-repo PR(s), 0 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	❌ No public Gittensor match	lourincedaging0-commits; not a blocker.
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.
Improvement	⚠️ ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: low · value: insufficient-signal — Nothing measurable for the structural-improvement analyzers on this PR (e.g. no code files changed). LLM value judgment: moderate — The spec closes a real blocking dependency (#5671) with a concrete, internally consistent contract that reuses existing gate logic rather than inventing a parallel one, though as pure documentation it carries no immediate runtime value until #5671 implements against it.

Review context

• Author: lourincedaging0-commits
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Contributor context: Public profile only; not a blocker.
• 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

_{🟩 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.