test(miner): fix stale gittensory identifiers in cross-repo-evaluation test

[JSONbored]

Summary

• docs(miner): rename gittensory prose to loopover in miner/mcp packages #5899 renamed scanPositiveGittensoryAssumptions → scanPositiveLoopoverAssumptions and the summary field withoutGittensoryConfig → withoutLoopoverConfig in packages/loopover-miner/lib/cross-repo-evaluation.js, but missed the consuming test file.
• This broke npm run typecheck on main (missing export → cascading implicit-any) and one assertion (a stale report-text literal), discovered while rebasing an unrelated PR onto main.
• Fixed test/unit/miner-cross-repo-evaluation.test.ts to use the renamed identifiers/text.

Test plan

• npm run typecheck — clean
• npx vitest run test/unit/miner-cross-repo-evaluation.test.ts — 29/29 passing
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate — 0 vulnerabilities

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

🛑 LoopOver review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-14 23:01:31 UTC}

1 file · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · readiness 88/100 · CI failing · blocked

🛑 Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This PR mechanically updates a stale test file to match identifier and text renames (scanPositiveGittensoryAssumptions → scanPositiveLoopoverAssumptions, withoutGittensoryConfig → withoutLoopoverConfig) that landed in #5899 but were never propagated to the consuming test. The changes are a straightforward find-and-replace of import names, describe/it block references, and one report-text literal, all consistent with the source rename described in the PR. No new logic is introduced, and the diff appears self-consistent and low-risk.

Nits — 2 non-blocking

• The test block title at test/unit/miner-cross-repo-evaluation.test.ts still mixes 'gittensory'/'loopover' terminology across different lines (e.g. line 130 references both LoopOver and gittensory in the fixture text); worth double-checking these are intentional fixture inputs and not further stale references.
• Consider a quick repo-wide grep for 'scanPositiveGittensoryAssumptions' or 'withoutGittensoryConfig' to confirm no other consumers (docs, other test files) were missed in the docs(miner): rename gittensory prose to loopover in miner/mcp packages #5899 rename.

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.

📋 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.

2. Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example `Closes #123`) before opening the PR.

CI checks failing

• validate
• validate-tests (5)
• validate-tests (3)

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: 43 registered-repo PR(s), 35 merged, 385 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 43 PR(s), 385 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.
Improvement	⚠️ ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: clean · value: insufficient-signal — Nothing measurable for the structural-improvement analyzers on this PR (e.g. no code files changed). LLM value judgment: minor — This is a small, well-targeted fix that restores typecheck/test consistency after a prior rename, with no functional code changes.

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 43 PR(s), 385 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.
• Triage stale or unlinked PRs.
• No action.
• 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.

[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