docs(ams): inventory real-world contribution-eligibility signals across a repo sample

[bitfathers94]

Summary

Adds packages/loopover-miner/docs/ams-contribution-signal-inventory.md — an evidence-based inventory of the
real-world PR-eligibility signals exposed by a diverse sample of ten public GitHub repos, gathered to ground
the ContributionProfile schema designed next in #6795.

Per #6794's requirements, ten repos were audited (JSONbored's own gate-enabled loopover/metagraphed, large
OSS facebook/react/rust-lang/rust/microsoft/vscode, mid-size cli/cli/denoland/deno, small
honojs/hono/tailwindlabs/tailwindcss, and sindresorhus/ky with no repo-local contribution docs at all)
across four signal dimensions each:

• Label taxonomy (GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/labels, judged by name + description),
• CONTRIBUTING.md content (linked-issue / required-label / assignment rules),
• PR template presence and any eligibility checklist,
• AI-agent-facing docs (AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md / .claude/skills/** / .cursor/rules) that state
  contribution rules for an AI contributor.

The doc is a master inventory table plus per-signal-type findings, a consistency analysis, and concrete
implications for the #6795 schema. Headline findings: eligibility label names (good first issue /
help wanted) are the most portable signal but carry no enforcement; label descriptions are empty or generic
in almost every repo; explicit machine-readable eligibility in a description is essentially unique to the
gate-enabled repos; exclusion signals (maintainer-only, cli/cli's core, vscode's team-low-hanging)
are expressed more consistently than inclusion; and agent-facing docs are increasingly common but almost never
state contribution eligibility (they are developer/build guides).

Research/documentation only — no code changes, following the existing precedent of research docs in
packages/loopover-miner/docs/ (e.g. coding-agent-credential-recommendation.md,
cross-repo-evaluation.md, repo-agnostic-capability-audit.md).

Closes #6794

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves (Closes #6794) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.

Validation

• git diff --check — clean.
• npm run docs:drift-check — ok (all documented surfaces in sync; a new research doc adds no drift).
• npm run branding-drift:check equivalent — the new file uses no legacy gittensory brand string, and the branding-drift check excludes *.md by design.
• npm run test:miner-deployment-docs-audit — ok (audit targets DEPLOYMENT.md; unaffected by this new doc).
• npx prettier --check on the new file — passes.

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• The code-specific checks (typecheck, test:coverage, test:workers, build:mcp, ui:*, OpenAPI) are not
  applicable: this PR touches zero src/**/TypeScript/UI/OpenAPI surface — it adds a single Markdown research
  doc under packages/loopover-miner/docs/. There are no changed lines for codecov/patch to measure, and no
  runtime behavior to test. This mirrors the existing research-doc precedent merged into the same directory.

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed. Label semantics are described abstractly (eligibility / scope / relative priority); no numeric scoring or reward values are reproduced.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests — N/A (no code changes).
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed — N/A (no API/MCP changes).
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states — N/A (no UI changes).
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section — N/A: this is a plain repository Markdown doc with no rendered/visible surface (not a website docs page under apps/loopover-ui/**), so there is nothing to screenshot.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs — no changelog edited.

Notes

Deliberately scoped to the inventory only (#6794); the ContributionProfile schema and caching shape it informs
are the next sub-issue (#6795), and extraction/discover wiring come after that (#6796/#6797).

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-17 09:59:34 UTC}

1 file · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · CI green · clean

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

Review summary
This is a docs-only PR adding a 215-line research inventory (packages/loopover-miner/docs/ams-contribution-signal-inventory.md) auditing PR-eligibility signals across ten public repos, intended to ground the ContributionProfile schema for #6795. The content is well-organized, internally consistent (the sample table, findings, and appendix all corroborate each other), and makes no code changes, consistent with the stated precedent of other research docs in the same directory. The main issue is the PR metadata: the description says 'Closes #6' while the entire narrative and issue references are about #6794/#6795/#6793 — that mismatch needs to be resolved before this can be considered properly linked.

Blockers

• The PR description states "Closes feat(docs): add analytics and mcp version widget #6" but every substantive reference in the body (and the doc's own header) points to AMS contribution-profile: inventory real-world eligibility signals across a diverse repo sample #6794 as the issue being addressed — confirm the correct issue number, since an unrelated or mistyped closing reference fails the required issue-link convention.

Nits — 6 non-blocking

• packages/loopover-miner/docs/ams-contribution-signal-inventory.md:54 uses "master" in the PR-template heading table cell wording pattern ('`Y` = present...'); actually the flagged term is in the legend line — consider 'main/primary' per current inclusive-terminology convention, though this is a very minor wording nit in a research doc.
• This is a large (215-line) single document with no structural aids like a table of contents; for a doc this dense, a short TOC or anchor links at the top would help readers jump to the schema-implications section.
• The doc claims specific label counts (e.g., 'rust-lang/rust (~960 labels)', 'react: 76 labels') that are unverifiable from the diff alone — worth a footnote on when this data was gathered, since label taxonomies drift over time and this snapshot will age.
• Fix the issue-closing reference in the PR description to point to AMS contribution-profile: inventory real-world eligibility signals across a diverse repo sample #6794 (or whichever issue is intended) so the required issue link is unambiguous.
• Consider adding a short 'Last verified: <date>' note near the Method section, since GitHub label/doc snapshots are a moving target and future readers won't otherwise know how stale the table is.
• Diff looks like trivial or whitespace-only churn — Reduce whitespace-only or formatting-only churn and keep the diff focused on substantive changes.

Why this is blocked

• The PR description states "Closes feat(docs): add analytics and mcp version widget #6" but every substantive reference in the body (and the doc's own header) points to AMS contribution-profile: inventory real-world eligibility signals across a diverse repo sample #6794 as the issue being addressed — confirm the correct issue number, since an unrelated or mistyped closing reference fails the required issue-link convention.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

Fix the following blocker(s) from this PR review:

1. The PR description states "Closes \#6" but every substantive reference in the body \(and the doc's own header\) points to \#6794 as the issue being addressed — confirm the correct issue number, since an unrelated or mistyped closing reference fails the required issue-link convention.

Decision drivers

• ❌ Code review — 1 blocker (1 reviewer)
• ❌ Gate result — Blocking (Repo-configured hard blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#6794
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 (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 0 registered-repo PR(s), 0 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	ℹ️ No public Gittensor match	bitfathers94; not a blocker.
Improvement	ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: low · value: insufficient-signal · LLM: moderate

Review context

• Author: bitfathers94
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Contributor context: Public profile only; not a blocker.
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

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 is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (AI reviewers agree on a likely critical defect: The PR description states "Closes #6" but every substantive reference in the body (and the doc's own header) points to #6794 as the issue being addressed — confirm the correct issue number, since an unrelated or mistyped closing reference fails the required issue-link convention.). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.