feat(mcp): register the 8 miner write-tools on the local stdio server

[davion-knight]

What & why

packages/loopover-mcp's miner-auto-dev profile lists loopover_open_pr, loopover_file_issue, loopover_apply_labels, loopover_post_eligibility_comment, loopover_create_branch, loopover_delete_branch, loopover_generate_tests, and loopover_file_follow_up_issue in its recommendedTools, but none were registered as local stdio tools — a contributor driving the local server could not invoke any of the write-tools the profile promises.

This registers all 8, reusing the same pure @loopover/engine spec builders the remote server (src/mcp/server.ts) already uses. Each tool returns a LOCAL-execution action spec ({ action, command, boundary }) that the caller runs with its own gh/git credentials — loopover never performs the write itself. Input shapes mirror the remote server's bounds; the test-framework enum mirrors @loopover/engine's TEST_FRAMEWORKS.

Tests

Adds test/unit/mcp-cli-write-tools.test.ts — drives the real local stdio bin over StdioClientTransport and asserts, per tool, the composed spec (e.g. loopover_open_pr → gh pr create --repo '…', loopover_create_branch → git switch -c '…') plus a zod input-rejection failure path. Updates mcp-tool-rename-aliases.test.ts for the new registered-tool count (50).

Closes #6149

[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 95.60%. Comparing base (7152db6) to head (a9759ff).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6390   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.60%   95.60%           
=======================================
  Files         599      599           
  Lines       47238    47238           
  Branches    15031    15031           
=======================================
  Hits        45160    45160           
  Misses       1291     1291           
  Partials      787      787           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	44.06% <ø> (ø)
shard-2	36.72% <ø> (+0.12%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.52% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
shard-4	34.68% <ø> (+0.06%)	⬆️
shard-5	31.58% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-6	44.87% <ø> (ø)

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

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-16 06:15:36 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 81/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This registers the 8 miner write-tools on the local stdio server by importing and wiring the existing pure `@​loopover/engine` spec builders, closing the gap where the miner-auto-dev profile promised tools that were never registered locally. The input shapes mirror the remote server's bounds, the TEST_FRAMEWORKS enum matches the engine's set, and the test suite drives the real stdio bin via StdioClientTransport asserting composed commands per tool plus a rejection path. The change is well-scoped, closes issue #6149 as claimed, and the tool-count test updates (47→55) are consistent with the 8 additions.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• packages/loopover-mcp/bin/loopover-mcp.js: several new numeric bounds (200, 400, 60000, 255, etc.) are named via WRITE_TOOL_* constants but a few inline literals (3, 20, 500, 50, 300) aren't — consider extracting for consistency with the pattern already established.
• test/unit/mcp-cli-write-tools.test.ts: the invalid-input map building one `Record<string, Record<string, unknown>>` and iterating is a bit indirect — a `describe.each`/table-per-tool would give clearer failure messages, but this is purely stylistic.
• packages/loopover-mcp/bin/loopover-mcp.js is now a very large file (~1795 lines per the size-smell scan); worth flagging for a future split even though this PR only adds to an existing pattern rather than introducing the size problem.
• Consider extracting the remaining magic numbers (3, 20, 500, 50, 300) into named constants alongside the existing WRITE_TOOL_* ones for readability.
• If loopover-mcp.js continues to grow with each new tool category, consider splitting write-tool registration into its own module now that there are 8 of them with shared shapes.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#6149
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
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: 157 registered-repo PR(s), 103 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	davion-knight; Gittensor profile; 157 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR registers all 8 requested tools via registerStdioTool in bin/loopover-mcp.js, reusing shared @​loopover/engine spec builders that mirror the remote server's input shapes/behavior, and adds a dedicated test file exercising success and zod-rejection failure paths for each tool. It also addresses the two flagged 'may have no precedent' tools (generate_tests, file_follow_up_issue) by using pure

Review context

• Author: davion-knight
• 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: 157 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Then work through the remaining 2 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://loopover.ai/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

[loopover-orb]

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