review: collapse signal table into decision drivers + advisory fold

[JSONbored]

Closes #6067.

Stacked on #6077 (same function, sequential edit — this PR's diff is intentionally scoped to just the table change; GitHub will show only the incremental diff against that branch, and auto-retarget to main once #6077 merges).

Summary

• UnifiedSignalRow gets a new optional gates?: boolean field. panelRowsToSignalRows (the bridge that converts the legacy 4-col panel rows into the unified renderer's rows) sets gates: row.key === "gateResult" — the ONLY row among the panel's 7 that can actually move the verdict; every other row's own Evidence/Action text already says it's advisory (e.g. "No action.", "Advisory only.").
• The always-rendered table is replaced with:
  • Decision drivers — an always-visible bullet list: the synthetic "Code review" row (unchanged, still never subject to review.fields) plus any gates: true row.
  • Context & advisory signals — a new collapsed <details> containing the same Signal/Result/Evidence table markup as before, scoped to the non-gating rows. Omitted entirely when there's nothing advisory to show.
• review.fields.<key> visibility toggles are unaffected — filtering still happens on the raw panel rows (by .key) before this split, so a hidden row stays hidden in either bucket.
• Neither section is gated by review.comment_verbosity: quiet, matching the old table's own invariant (it was never dropped by quiet either) — only decorative detail (Nits, extraCollapsibles) is.

Test plan

• npx vitest run test/unit/unified-comment.test.ts test/unit/unified-comment-bridge.test.ts test/unit/signals-coverage.test.ts — 224/224 pass (updated existing table-format assertions to the new bullet format + 3 new tests covering the gates:true split and its edge cases)
• npx tsc --noEmit clean
• npm run docs:drift-check, npm run manifest:drift-check, npm run command-reference:check — pass
• Grepped for other consumers of the removed signalTable/old row shape — none found
• Coverage-checked the exact diff hunks — no uncovered statements/branches within changed lines

[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 95.24%. Comparing base (0760e1f) to head (c1f0695).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6083   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.24%   95.24%           
=======================================
  Files         595      595           
  Lines       47035    47062   +27     
  Branches    15015    15021    +6     
=======================================
+ Hits        44797    44824   +27     
  Misses       1493     1493           
  Partials      745      745           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.97% <72.00%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
shard-2	36.61% <52.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-3	31.98% <68.00%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
shard-4	33.82% <100.00%> (+0.69%)	⬆️
shard-5	31.46% <44.00%> (-0.76%)	⬇️
shard-6	44.84% <52.00%> (+0.34%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/review/unified-comment-bridge.ts	99.58% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/review/unified-comment.ts	99.61% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

🛑 LoopOver review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-15 09:09:14 UTC}

4 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 80/100 · CI failing · dirty

🛑 Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This diff splits the previously single always-rendered signal table into an always-visible 'Decision drivers' bullet list (Code review + any `gates: true` row) and a collapsed 'Context & advisory signals' table for everything else, driven by a new optional `gates` field set only for the panel's 'Gate result' row in `panelRowsToSignalRows`. The logic is correctly gated: `review.fields` filtering still happens upstream on raw panel rows so per-row visibility is unaffected, and `comment_verbosity: quiet` correctly leaves both new sections untouched (matching the old table's invariant). Tests cover both branches of the bare-row rendering (present/absent result and evidence) and the gates:true/false split, and the diff is well-scoped to the stated #6067 issue.

Nits — 6 non-blocking

• The new JSDoc blocks above `codeReviewRow`, `decisionDriverBlock`, and `advisorySignalsTable` in src/review/unified-comment.ts are multi-paragraph comment blocks explaining rationale that mostly belongs in the PR description, not inline — consider trimming to one-line explanations of non-obvious invariants only.
• `signalRowLine` (unified-comment.ts) and the inline row-mapper inside `advisorySignalsTable` both re-implement result/evidence formatting slightly differently (bullet vs table cell) with no shared helper — minor duplication, not urgent to unify.
• `panelRowsToSignalRows` in unified-comment-bridge.ts now always sets `gates: row.key === "gateResult"` — worth double-checking that `"gateResult"` is in fact the stable/only key used for the loopover gate row today, since a rename there would silently move it into the advisory fold with no compile-time signal.
• Consider bolding or otherwise visually distinguishing the synthetic 'Code review' row within the new Decision drivers bullet list, since the old table's `i === 0` bold treatment for that row was dropped without an equivalent replacement.
• If more `gates: true` rows are added in the future, consider asserting/documenting an expected ordering (e.g. Code review always first) since `decisionDriverBlock` currently just concatenates arrays in insertion order.
• PR author also opened the linked issue — Link an issue that was opened by a different contributor, or provide a rationale for why this self-authored issue represents genuine discovery work.

CI checks failing

• validate
• codecov/patch — 74.07% of diff hit (target 99.00%)
• validate-tests (1)

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#6067
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 (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 43 registered-repo PR(s), 35 merged, 360 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 43 PR(s), 360 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

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: Python, TypeScript, Ruby, Go, JavaScript, MDX, Shell, Solidity
• Official Gittensor activity: 43 PR(s), 360 issue(s).
• Related work: Items reference the same linked issue review: collapse the 9-row signal table into decision-driver chips + one advisory fold #6067. (issue #6067)
• Related work: Open PR work references issue review: collapse the 9-row signal table into decision-driver chips + one advisory fold #6067. (issue #6067)

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Then work through the remaining 3 steps in the Signals table above.

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.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

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

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover 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/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 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