feat(api): REST + CLI mirror for loopover_explain_review_risk (#6980)

[RealDiligent]

Summary

• Add POST /v1/preflight/review-risk with shared buildReviewRiskExplanation (MCP parity; optional contributorLogin gated by requireContributorAccess).
• Add stdio tool loopover_explain_review_risk + shell CLI explain-review-risk (stdio tool count 78 → 79).
• Cover route/auth/parity, CLI mirrors, and OpenAPI.

Closes #6980

Test plan

• Local vitest: routes-review-risk, mcp-cli-review-risk
• CI validate-code + Codecov patch ≥99%

[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 93.73%. Comparing base (447ee82) to head (8f6d9a5).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7026   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.73%   93.73%           
=======================================
  Files         690      691    +1     
  Lines       68580    68595   +15     
  Branches    18746    18750    +4     
=======================================
+ Hits        64281    64296   +15     
  Misses       3302     3302           
  Partials      997      997           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.67% <80.95%> (+0.04%)	⬆️
shard-2	36.89% <9.52%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-3	33.15% <19.04%> (+0.07%)	⬆️
shard-4	34.23% <19.04%> (-0.13%)	⬇️
shard-5	32.01% <28.57%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-6	45.80% <61.90%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/api/routes.ts	94.91% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/mcp/server.ts	96.25% <100.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
src/openapi/schemas.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/openapi/spec.ts	99.47% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/signals/review-risk.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-17 18:44:54 UTC}

12 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 95/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This PR extracts the existing MCP tool's inline logic in src/mcp/server.ts into a shared buildReviewRiskExplanation function in a new src/signals/review-risk.ts, wires it to a new POST /v1/preflight/review-risk route with the same auth pattern (requireContributorAccess) as the existing /v1/preflight/pr route, adds the OpenAPI schema/path, and adds a CLI/stdio mirror. The refactor of the MCP handler is a faithful extraction (same computation, same recommendation logic, same summary string), and the REST route reuses the identical preflightSchema and contributor-access gate already proven at /v1/preflight/pr. Tests directly assert REST/MCP parity and CLI/stdio parity against the same fixture, which is the right shape for this kind of mirror PR.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• The recommendation ternary chain in src/signals/review-risk.ts is copy-pasted from the prior inline version in src/mcp/server.ts; fine as an extraction but worth a short comment explaining the precedence order (duplicate > maintainer lane > needs_author > ready > watch) since it's non-obvious business logic.
• explainReviewRiskCli in packages/loopover-mcp/bin/loopover-mcp.js has fairly high branching (many optional-field coercions); consider extracting the array-normalization boilerplate (labels/changedFiles/tests) into a small shared helper if this pattern repeats in future CLI mirrors.
• Magic HTTP status literals (200/400/403) in src/openapi/spec.ts and src/api/routes.ts mirror the existing convention elsewhere in the file, so not worth changing here.
• Consider a lint or test assertion that the /v1/preflight/review-risk route and the MCP tool call the same buildReviewRiskExplanation instance to prevent future drift, beyond the current fixture-based parity test.
• docs/README could mention the new `explain-review-risk` CLI command alongside the other preflight-family commands for discoverability.

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	#6980
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: 402 registered-repo PR(s), 201 merged, 34 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	RealDiligent; Gittensor profile; 402 PR(s), 34 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds POST /v1/preflight/review-risk mirroring /v1/preflight/pr's validation pattern with a richer payload (preflight, roleContext, recommendation, summary), a CLI/stdio mirror (explain-review-risk / loopover_explain_review_risk) with optional contributorLogin, and refactors the MCP tool to share the same buildReviewRiskExplanation logic, plus parity tests and OpenAPI documentation.

Review context

• Author: RealDiligent
• 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: 402 PR(s), 34 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Triage stale or unlinked PRs.

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

[loopover-orb]

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