fix(miner): printHelp() omits the working deny-hooks subcommand

[phamngocquy]

Summary

deny-hooks is a fully working top-level CLI subcommand (packages/loopover-miner/bin/loopover-miner.ts:174, dispatched via runDenyHooks, wired since #8806) but is the only registered subcommand absent from packages/loopover-miner/lib/cli.ts's printHelp() usage text -- every other subcommand (queue, claim, ledger, plan, governor, calibration, state, orb export, tenant, purge, ...) is listed there. An operator running loopover-miner --help cannot discover the command exists.

Deliverables

• printHelp() includes a deny-hooks usage line describing its real subcommands (check deny-hooks-cli.ts for the actual subcommand names to document accurately)
• A test asserting printHelp()'s output contains the string deny-hooks (extend the existing help-text test if one exists, or add one)

All of the above Deliverables are required in the same PR unless the deliverable text itself states otherwise.

Test plan

packages/loopover-miner/** -- 99%+ Codecov patch target. The new/updated test must assert the exact substring is present in printHelp's output, not just that the function runs.

Fixes #8851

[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 90.55%. Comparing base (10755ed) to head (0127b16).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8933      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.56%   90.55%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          96       97       +1     
  Lines       22490    22498       +8     
  Branches     3884     3886       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        20367    20374       +7     
  Misses       1945     1945              
- Partials      178      179       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	87.50% <ø> (?)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
packages/loopover-miner/lib/cli.ts	87.50% <ø> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-26 14:02:01 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This is a narrow, well-scoped doc fix: it adds the missing `deny-hooks` usage lines (list/refresh/approve/reject) to printHelp() and asserts their presence in the existing help-text test, matching the format of every other subcommand block already in the file. It closes the linked issue #8851, doesn't touch runtime dispatch logic, and the new test lines exercise the exact strings added to the diff rather than fabricating anything.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• The new usage lines don't follow the file's pattern of a trailing description column for each verb (e.g. `queue done`/`claim release` have no inline description either, but `refresh`/`approve`/`reject` here get none while `list` implicitly shares the block description below `reject` — consider clarifying which line the summary description on the line after 'reject' applies to, since it visually reads as belonging only to 'reject').
• test/unit/miner-cli.test.ts:75 asserts full string for 'list' but not for 'refresh'/'approve'/'reject' — since deliverables call out documenting the real subcommands accurately, asserting at least one more variant (e.g. 'deny-hooks approve') would tighten coverage of the exact new lines.
• cli.ts: consider right-aligning the trailing description under 'reject' or moving it directly after 'list' to make clear it describes the whole deny-hooks command group, consistent with how 'discover --search' groups its description on the following line.
• 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	#8851
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: 1 registered-repo PR(s), 0 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	phamngocquy; Gittensor profile; 1 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ None detected	risk: low · value: none

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff adds a deny-hooks usage block to printHelp() listing its real subcommands (list, refresh, approve, reject) matching the surrounding format, and extends the existing help-text test to assert the substrings 'deny-hooks' and a specific usage line are present in the output.

Review context

• Author: phamngocquy
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Java, Python, Lua, Jupyter Notebook, C, Dockerfile, JavaScript, Shell
• Official Gittensor activity: 1 PR(s), 0 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.

Decision record

• action: merge · clause: success
• config: 03a7f8b529a9 · pack: oss-anti-slop
• record: 3f9b6276c693 (schema v2, head 0127b16)

_{🟩 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.