fix(rebrand): rename x-gittensory-request-id header to x-loopover-request-id

[JSONbored]

Summary

• Renamed the x-gittensory-request-id HTTP header to x-loopover-request-id, coordinated across all 3 places it's referenced: the sender (src/review/enrichment-wire.ts, main engine calling into review-enrichment), the receiver (review-enrichment/src/server.ts, which also falls back to the generic x-request-id), and the covering test.
• Completes the full-cutover rename of this cross-service wire contract between the main engine and the separately-deployed review-enrichment service.

Test plan

• npx vitest run test/unit/enrichment-wire.test.ts -- 58/58 pass
• Full npm run test:ci gate green locally

[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.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (main@217e96c). Learn more about missing BASE report.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5960   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage        ?   95.15%           
=======================================
  Files           ?      589           
  Lines           ?    46675           
  Branches        ?    14899           
=======================================
  Hits            ?    44414           
  Misses          ?     1511           
  Partials        ?      750           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.39% <ø> (?)
shard-2	36.30% <ø> (?)
shard-3	31.85% <ø> (?)
shard-4	31.82% <ø> (?)
shard-5	32.40% <ø> (?)
shard-6	44.91% <ø> (?)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/review/enrichment-wire.ts	98.45% <ø> (ø)

🚀 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

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-15 01:38:41 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · readiness 70/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This is a coordinated header rename from x-gittensory-request-id to x-loopover-request-id across the sender (enrichment-wire.ts), receiver (server.ts), and the corresponding test — the three sides of this wire contract stay in sync, and the receiver's fallback to the generic x-request-id header is preserved unchanged. The change is a mechanical, low-risk rename with no logic alteration.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• No backward-compatible fallback to the old x-gittensory-request-id header name is kept on the receiver side (review-enrichment/src/server.ts:98), so if any external caller or in-flight deployment still sends the old header during a rolling deploy, the receiver will silently fall through to x-request-id or undefined — verify this is acceptable given the PR's stated 'full-cutover' intent.
• Grep the repo for any remaining string literal references to 'x-gittensory-request-id' (docs, config, other services) to confirm this is truly the last of the 3 places, as claimed in the PR description.
• Code changes lack test evidence — Add focused regression tests or explain why existing coverage is sufficient.
• Readiness score is below the configured threshold — Use the readiness panel as advisory maintainer context; the score does not block this PR.

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.

📋 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.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
Related work	⚠️ 2 scoped overlaps	Top overlaps are listed below; lower-confidence bulk is hidden.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High 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, 411 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 43 PR(s), 411 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. LLM value judgment: minor — The diff is a small, mechanical, well-coordinated 3-file rename that completes a stated rebrand contract with no behavioral change.

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), 411 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 3 meaningful terms. (PR #5958)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 3 meaningful terms. (PR #5959)

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Explain no-issue PR.
• Review top overlaps.
• Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Triage stale or unlinked PRs.
• No action.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.
• Check active issues and PRs before submitting.

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