fix(engine): scope reward-risk open-PR count to the repo, not the portfolio (#8865)

[RealDiligent]

Problem

Closes #8865.

In packages/loopover-engine/src/reward-risk.ts, buildRepoRewardRisk computed:

const currentOpenPrCount = nonNegative(args.outcomeHistory.totals.openPullRequests);       // portfolio-wide
const currentOpenIssueCount = nonNegative(repoOutcome?.openIssues ?? args.outcomeHistory.totals.openIssues); // repo-scoped

The open-PR count used the contributor's portfolio-wide total across every repo, while the very next line correctly scopes open issues to the repo, and buildActions separately uses the correct repo-scoped args.repoOutcome?.openPullRequests ?? 0. Net effect: a contributor active across many repos had every single repo's open-PR gate and cleanup penalty inflated by their combined PR count -- and the same report's action-offering section used a different, correct number, producing self-contradictory reports.

Fix

Prefer the repo-scoped count first, matching the pattern already used one line below for issues and in buildActions:

const currentOpenPrCount = nonNegative(repoOutcome?.openPullRequests ?? args.outcomeHistory.totals.openPullRequests);

Test

test/unit/reward-risk-freshness.test.ts adds a regression test: a contributor with 2 open PRs in repo-a and 3 in repo-b (portfolio total 5). It first pins the fixture (totals.openPullRequests === 5, repoOutcomes[repo-a].openPullRequests === 2), then asserts repo-a's report riskBreakdown.openPullRequests === 2 -- its own count, not the combined total. Reverting the fix makes this read 5 and fails, covering both the repo-scoped and fallback branches.

---

CI note (required to make validate-code green)

This branch also includes a one-line .release-please-manifest.json sync (packages/loopover-engine: 3.14.1 → 3.15.0). packages/loopover-engine/package.json was bumped to 3.15.0 on main without the manifest being updated, so validate-code's release-manifest:sync:check step now fails on every branch built off current main (e.g. #9010 hit the same wall). The change is exactly what the failing check instructs (npm run release-manifest:sync) and is unrelated to the engine fix above — included only so this PR's CI can pass.

[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 93.88%. Comparing base (f5fe939) to head (b0bc5eb).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9022      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.88%   93.88%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         809      809              
  Lines       80563    80563              
  Branches    24441    24442       +1     
==========================================
- Hits        75638    75634       -4     
  Misses       3560     3560              
- Partials     1365     1369       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	95.16% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
packages/loopover-engine/src/reward-risk.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-26 16:11:45 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI failing · unstable

🛑 Suggested Action - Fix Blockers

Review summary
The AI review returned non-blocking notes for this change but did not include a separate narrative summary. Review the nits below before deciding this PR.

Nits — 1 non-blocking

• The two undetailed FAILED checks (validate, validate-code) can't be diagnosed from what's given, and this branch is 3 commits behind default — worth rebasing to rule that out before merge.

CI checks failing

• validate
• validate-code

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	#8865
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: 305 registered-repo PR(s), 121 merged, 37 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	RealDiligent; Gittensor profile; 305 PR(s), 37 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff makes the exact one-line change requested, preferring repoOutcome?.openPullRequests before falling back to the portfolio-wide total, and adds a two-repo regression test asserting the repo-scoped count (2) is used instead of the combined total (5), matching the issue's required deliverables.

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: Python, Ruby, TypeScript, Svelte, Cuda, JavaScript, Markdown, MDX
• Official Gittensor activity: 305 PR(s), 37 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