feat(mcp): register loopover_get_agent_audit_feed as a local stdio tool

[real-venus]

Summary

Closes #7757 — loopover_get_agent_audit_feed has a remote MCP tool (src/mcp/server.ts) and a maintain audit-feed CLI command, but no local stdio MCP tool registration. #6733 added the REST route + CLI but never the matching stdio tool.

What changed (packages/loopover-mcp/bin/loopover-mcp.ts)

• A registerStdioTool("loopover_get_agent_audit_feed", …) block, placed next to loopover_get_maintainer_noise, mirroring the sibling proxy pattern exactly — a thin GET of the same {repoBase}/agent/audit-feed route the maintain audit-feed CLI already calls, forwarding the optional since/limit query filters verbatim (the route validates + defaults).
• Input auditFeedShape mirrors the remote (owner/repo/since/limit). Description via stdioToolDescription(...) + a STDIO_TOOL_DESCRIPTORS entry (category: "agent").

Testing / coverage

• test/unit/mcp-cli-agent-audit-feed.test.ts drives it in-process (the loopover_plan_repo_issues has no REST route, CLI command, or local stdio MCP tool #7764 isProcessEntrypoint guard + InMemoryTransport) for real Codecov-measured coverage — covering both the with-filters (since+limit) and no-filters (empty query) branches.
• Tool-count invariant bumped to 96.

No REST/OpenAPI/CLI-surface change — ui:openapi:check, command-reference:check, docs/manifest drift all clean; build:mcp clean.

_{(Supersedes #7967, which was base-conflicted when #7966 merged mid-review — rebased onto current main.)}

[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 81.94%. Comparing base (ca738de) to head (caa5b99).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7972      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   79.59%   81.94%   +2.35%     
==========================================
  Files         738       94     -644     
  Lines       75699    23942   -51757     
  Branches    23008     4602   -18406     
==========================================
- Hits        60254    19620   -40634     
+ Misses      12671     4126    -8545     
+ Partials     2774      196    -2578     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	0.00% <0.00%> (-54.33%)	⬇️
shard-2	11.80% <100.00%> (-41.89%)	⬇️
shard-3	0.00% <0.00%> (?)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
packages/loopover-mcp/bin/loopover-mcp.ts	11.80% <100.00%> (-4.02%)	⬇️

... and 644 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-22 00:51:47 UTC}

3 files · 1 blocker · CI green · clean

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

• AI review already in progress for this PR head: Another LoopOver pass is already running the AI review for this exact PR head. This pass is skipping to avoid a duplicate LLM call.

Review summary
AI review is already running for this PR head in another LoopOver pass. LoopOver is holding this PR for manual review until that pass completes.

Nits — 2 non-blocking

• AI review already in progress for this PR head — The gate is held for a human reviewer rather than passed automatically; it re-evaluates once the in-flight review completes or on the next update.
• Possible secret-shaped assignment in the diff (generic_secret_assignment) — Verify the value is not a real credential.

Why this is blocked

• No linked issue detected: The PR cites an issue number, but it could not be verified as a currently open issue. — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

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

1. No linked issue detected: The PR cites an issue number, but it could not be verified as a currently open issue. — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

Decision drivers

• ❌ Code review — 1 blocker (no AI review ran — blocker is from a non-AI gate check)
• ❌ Gate result — Blocking (Repo-configured hard blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#7757
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: 112 registered-repo PR(s), 50 merged, 19 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	real-venus; Gittensor profile; 112 PR(s), 19 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds a registerStdioTool block for loopover_get_agent_audit_feed following the sibling pattern, using stdioToolDescription and a thin apiGet proxy to the same /agent/audit-feed route the CLI uses, with an added test file and updated tool-count invariants.

Review context

• Author: real-venus
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Rust, CSS, MDX, Svelte, Swift
• Official Gittensor activity: 112 PR(s), 19 issue(s).
• 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 (No linked issue detected). 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.