feat(openapi): document GET /v1/repos/:owner/:repo/gate-config/effective

[ultrahighsuper]

What

GET /v1/repos/:owner/:repo/gate-config/effective (src/api/routes.ts) is the direct sibling of live-gate-thresholds — back-to-back handlers sharing the exact same auth (requireStaticProtectedApiToken + the mcp-allowlist check) — but was missing from the OpenAPI contract entirely: no schema, no registerPath, no test assertion. So it never appeared in the generated openapi.json (or apps/loopover-ui/public/openapi.json), even though its live sibling did, leaving API consumers to reverse-engineer it from the route implementation.

Resolves #6611.

Change

• src/openapi/schemas.ts: add GateConfigEffectiveResponseSchema matching the handler's inline response shape — { repoFullName, effective: { confidenceFloor, scopeCap: { files, lines } }, shadowPending } — with the same .openapi(...) convention as the adjacent LiveGateThresholdsResponseSchema.
• src/openapi/spec.ts: register the schema and add a registry.registerPath for GET /v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/gate-config/effective, adjacent to live-gate-thresholds. The handler always returns data (nulls when no override) rather than 404-ing, and returns 401 (bad token) / 403 (not allowlisted) / 200 — so those are the documented statuses.
• test/unit/openapi.test.ts: .toBeDefined() assertion for the new path, so a future regression is caught by CI.
• Regenerated apps/loopover-ui/public/openapi.json (ui:openapi:check passes).

Scoped to gate-config/effective only — no other undocumented route is touched.

Locally green: npx vitest run test/unit/openapi.test.ts → 3/3; tsx scripts/write-ui-openapi.ts --check passes; spec.ts coverage 100% lines; eslint clean.

[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 93.65%. Comparing base (986a12a) to head (c4f31f0).
⚠️ Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6687   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.65%   93.65%           
=======================================
  Files         681      682    +1     
  Lines       68114    68118    +4     
  Branches    18706    18711    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits        63791    63795    +4     
  Misses       3347     3347           
  Partials      976      976           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.89% <100.00%> (-0.07%)	⬇️
shard-2	36.97% <33.33%> (+0.10%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.46% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️
shard-4	34.24% <100.00%> (-0.43%)	⬇️
shard-5	31.38% <33.33%> (+0.46%)	⬆️
shard-6	45.75% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/openapi/schemas.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/openapi/spec.ts	99.44% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-16 19:21:43 UTC}

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

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This adds an OpenAPI schema, path registration, and a contract-test assertion for GET /v1/repos/:owner/:repo/gate-config/effective, mirroring the adjacent live-gate-thresholds documentation pattern. The schema in schemas.ts matches the response shape asserted in the existing integration test (repoFullName, effective.confidenceFloor/scopeCap.files/scopeCap.lines, shadowPending), and the regenerated openapi.json diff is consistent with the schema addition. It's a narrowly-scoped, low-risk documentation fix that closes issue #6611 as claimed.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• The test/unit/openapi.test.ts addition only checks `.toBeDefined()` for the path — it doesn't assert the registered schema shape or response codes, so a future accidental schema drift wouldn't be caught by this file (though the integration test in test/integration/api.test.ts does verify the actual response shape).
• src/openapi/spec.ts: the new GateConfigEffectiveResponseSchema import is inserted out of alphabetical order relative to the surrounding imports (it sits between IssueQualityResponseSchema and LabelAuditSchema, but 'GateConfigEffectiveResponseSchema' should sort before 'InstallationRepairSchema' alphabetically) — minor consistency nit given the file otherwise appears alphabetized.
• Consider adding a light assertion in test/unit/openapi.test.ts on the response schema's required fields (repoFullName, effective, shadowPending) rather than only path existence, for symmetry with how thorough test/integration/api.test.ts already is.
• Double check the import ordering in src/openapi/spec.ts:34 against the file's alphabetization convention (if it has ESLint import/order enabled, CI would have already caught this, but worth a manual glance).
• Code changes lack test evidence — Add focused regression tests or explain why existing coverage is sufficient.

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	#6611
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: 120 registered-repo PR(s), 72 merged, 21 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	ultrahighsuper; Gittensor profile; 120 PR(s), 21 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ None detected	risk: low · value: none

Review context

• Author: ultrahighsuper
• 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: 120 PR(s), 21 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.

Visual preview

Route	Viewport	Before (production)	After (this PR's preview)	Diff
/	desktop	before /	after /	—
/	mobile	before / (mobile)	after / (mobile)	—

Click any thumbnail to open the full-size screenshot. Before = production · After = this PR's preview deploy.

_{🟩 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