test(calibration): make signal-tracking's real coverage visible to Codecov

[cleanjunc]

Summary

• packages/loopover-engine/src/calibration/signal-tracking.ts (Extract a shared, deployment-agnostic calibration/signal-tracking module for ORB + AMS #7982) — computeRulePrecision, computeRuleRepeatCount, and evaluateRuleRepeatAlarm — is fully exercised by the engine package's own node --test suite (packages/loopover-engine/test/signal-tracking.test.ts), but that runner is not part of the root vitest run Codecov reads codecov/patch from, so the module reports as ~0% covered in Codecov's eyes despite being genuinely tested. Same blind spot as fix(ci): review-enrichment's real node:test coverage is invisible to Codecov (83 of 83 files effectively unmeasured) #6250.
• Adds a root-level vitest twin, test/unit/signal-tracking.test.ts, importing the three primitives via the engine barrel (../../packages/loopover-engine/src/index) and re-exercising every scenario the package suite covers — mirroring the sibling twins test/unit/calibration-dashboard.test.ts and test/unit/discovery-soft-claim.test.ts.
• Adds a short note to the engine package README documenting the root mirror (extending the existing reviewer-consensus-calibration.ts (658 lines) is the package's largest branch surface invisible to Codecov #8349 mirror note). This README touch is deliberate and load-bearing — see "Why the README change" below.
• No change to any file under packages/loopover-engine/src/** or packages/loopover-engine/test/**.

Covers both arms of every branch in the three functions: computeRulePrecision (fired-rule filter, override rule match/no-match, reversed/confirmed verdicts, decided > 0 ? … : null both arms), computeRuleRepeatCount (both && operands' false arms via same-rule-different-target and same-target-different-rule, plus the empty-list case), and evaluateRuleRepeatAlarm (below/at-threshold boundary, seen-dedup first-seen order, other-ruleId exclusion, empty list). Locally this brings the source module to 100% line + branch under vitest.

Why the README change (please read before grading scope)

A pure test/**-only diff that touches no packages/loopover-engine/** path is classified by CI as a scoped, coverage-artifact-free run: each test shard runs vitest --changed=origin/main --coverage.all=false, produces an empty coverage/lcov.info (no changed src/**), and therefore skips uploading its coverage blob ("scoped run passed but exercised no src/** files -- skipping coverage artifacts for this shard"). With zero coverage-blob-shard-* artifacts, validate-tests-merge then fails with ENOENT … all-blob-reports, which fails validate and auto-closes the PR — which is exactly what happened to my first attempt (#8407).

The merged twin PR for #8349 avoided this by also adding a note to packages/loopover-engine/README.md. Touching an engine-package path flips CI onto the full-coverage run, whose shards upload real blobs so validate-tests-merge passes. This PR follows that established, merged precedent: the README note is genuinely useful (it documents why the root mirror exists) and keeps CI on the full-coverage path. It adds zero src/** production lines, so codecov/patch still has nothing on this diff to grade — the coverage this adds is what makes a future PR touching signal-tracking.ts gate correctly.

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format.
• Focused: a single new test file plus a directly-related, CI-load-bearing README note (rationale above); no unrelated backend/UI/MCP/dep/deploy changes.
• Follows CONTRIBUTING.md; does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves — Closes #8343.

Validation

• git diff --check — clean.
• npm run actionlint — N/A: no workflow / composite-action changes.
• npm run typecheck — green (after building @loopover/engine, as the root test:ci sequence does before typecheck).
• npm run test:coverage locally — the new file passes (13 tests) and reports 100% line + branch coverage of signal-tracking.ts.
• npm run test:workers — N/A: no worker code changed.
• npm run build:mcp / npm run test:mcp-pack — N/A: no MCP changes.
• npm run ui:openapi:check / npm run ui:lint / npm run ui:typecheck / npm run ui:build — N/A: no UI, API, or OpenAPI surface changed.
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate — not run locally (sandbox audit endpoint returns a lockfile 400); no dependency changes, so it cannot affect the audit. CI runs it against a clean install.
• New or changed behavior has unit tests — this PR is the added test coverage; no production behavior changed.

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• All skipped checks are N/A for a PR that adds one root-level vitest file plus a docs note, with no production, UI, MCP, API, workflow, or dependency changes.

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, PATs, private keys, trust scores, private rankings, or maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and implies no compensation or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests — N/A: none changed.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed — N/A: none changed.
• UI changes use live API data / real empty/error/loading states — N/A: no UI changes.
• Public docs/changelogs updated where needed; CHANGELOG.md not edited (not a release-prep PR).

Notes

• The test imports the primitives from the engine barrel, not a relative path into the source file, matching every existing sibling root-level engine test.
• No behavior of signal-tracking.ts was changed, and its own node --test suite was left untouched, as the issue requires.

[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 92.44%. Comparing base (c02da85) to head (24a21b2).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8420      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.42%   92.44%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         791      791              
  Lines       79290    79290              
  Branches    23950    23952       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        73283    73298      +15     
+ Misses       4868     4849      -19     
- Partials     1139     1143       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	54.10% <ø> (+0.79%)	⬆️
shard-2	52.01% <ø> (-0.46%)	⬇️
shard-3	55.05% <ø> (-1.09%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-24 13:00:04 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · CI green · clean

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

Review summary
This PR adds a root-level vitest twin test file mirroring the engine package's existing node:test suite for signal-tracking.ts, purely to make Codecov's patch coverage visible for a module that's already genuinely tested. The test content itself is thorough — it exercises both arms of every branch in computeRulePrecision, computeRuleRepeatCount, and evaluateRuleRepeatAlarm — and the README addition documenting the mirror follows the exact pattern of the existing #8349 entry for reviewer-consensus-calibration.ts. This is a narrow, well-scoped, test-only diff with no changes to src/** or test/** under the engine package, matching the established convention visible in the README and vitest.config.ts context provided.

Nits — 2 non-blocking

• The header comment in test/unit/signal-tracking.test.ts:1-10 is fairly long for a test file preamble; consider trimming to the essential cross-reference (issue number + sibling twin names) since the PR description already carries the full rationale.
• Confirm this PR links to the eligible open issue it's addressing (calibration/signal-tracking.ts's real node:test coverage is invisible to Codecov #8343 per the README/test comments) since that's the repo's stated requirement for external contributor PRs — the description references it but I can't independently verify issue eligibility from the diff alone.

Why this is blocked

• No linked issue detected: No closing reference or linked issue number was found in the PR metadata/body. — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue: This repo's maintainer focus manifest requires every PR to reference a tracked issue. — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

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

1. No linked issue detected: No closing reference or linked issue number was found in the PR metadata/body. — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

2. Maintainer requires a linked issue: This repo's maintainer focus manifest requires every PR to reference a tracked issue. — Link the relevant issue (for example `Closes #123`) before opening the PR.

Decision drivers

• ❌ Code review — 2 blockers (1 reviewer)
• ❌ Gate result — Blocking (Repo-configured hard blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
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 (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 53 registered-repo PR(s), 22 merged, 37 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	cleanjunc; Gittensor profile; 53 PR(s), 37 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: clean · value: insufficient-signal · LLM: minor

Review context

• Author: cleanjunc
• 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: 53 PR(s), 37 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Explain no-issue PR.
• 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 is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (No linked issue detected; Maintainer requires a linked issue). 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.