fix(orb): SKILL.md linked-issue trigger must key on the gate-mode enforcement authority (#9671)

[kai392]

What

repo-skill-render.ts asserted "a linked issue is required" from two different fields in the same generated file. hasStrictLinkedIssueRule keyed on requireLinkedIssue && linkedIssuePolicy !== "optional", while the Linked-issues section keyed on linkedIssueGateMode === "block". For a repo with requireLinkedIssue: true, linkedIssuePolicy: "required", linkedIssueGateMode: "advisory" (a real, common combo — advisory is the default), the generated SKILL.md said "A linked issue is required, with a 'required' policy." a few lines above "Required: no" — directly contradictory misinformation, written into contributor repos and read by AI agents. Only "block" mode actually blocks (repo-profile.ts:68-70). hasStrictLinkedIssueRule is also one of shouldGenerateRepoSkill's three signals, so a skill file could be generated off a signal that enforces nothing.

How

• hasStrictLinkedIssueRule now keys on linkedIssueGateMode === "block" — the documented enforcement authority, matching repo-doc-render.ts:106.
• renderTriggerReasons' sentence states the blocking mode and only fires when the gate actually blocks. The Linked-issues section (Policy: / Required:) is unchanged.

Tests

• The linked-issue signal counts toward shouldGenerateRepoSkill only under block mode.
• REGRESSION: the advisory-mode SKILL.md never claims a linked issue is required and says Required: no; the block-mode doc states it is required and says Required: yes (agree both ways).
• Advisory linked-issue + multi-stage CI no longer reaches the 2-of-3 threshold.
• Existing repo-skill-render fixtures that meant a genuine strict rule now set block mode, and repo-doc-pr's seedSkillTriggerRepo sets a blocking gate.linkedIssue in the manifest so the skill-generation trigger still fires under the corrected semantics.

Closes #9671

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-29 23:46:28 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · CI green · dirty

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

Review summary
This PR retargets `hasStrictLinkedIssueRule` from `requireLinkedIssue && linkedIssuePolicy !== "optional"` to `linkedIssueGateMode === "block"`, fixing a real contradiction where SKILL.md could claim a linked issue is required while also stating "Required: no". The change is well-scoped: source fix, updated trigger-reason string, and corresponding test updates across three files that consistently set `linkedIssueGateMode: "block"` where a strict rule is intended. Tests directly cover the regression scenario (advisory mode never claims required) and the block-mode agreement case, which is real coverage of the actual bug, not fabricated.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• src/review/repo-skill-render.ts:27 — the comment cites `repo-profile.ts:68-70` as a line-number reference; line numbers drift as files change, consider referencing the exported constant/function name instead for durability.
• The PR touches `linkedIssuePolicy !== "optional"` semantics but leaves the `linkedIssuePolicy` field's own meaning seemingly redundant with `linkedIssueGateMode` in the rendered doc (Policy: vs Required:) — worth a doc comment clarifying they're now independent axes to avoid a future contributor reintroducing the same conflation.
• Consider extracting the `linkedIssueGateMode === "block"` check into a shared helper if `repo-doc-render.ts:106` duplicates the same condition, to prevent the two from drifting apart again as happened here.

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

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#9671
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: 101 registered-repo PR(s), 55 merged, 7 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	kai392; Gittensor profile; 101 PR(s), 7 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff changes hasStrictLinkedIssueRule to key on linkedIssueGateMode === "block" (matching repo-doc-render.ts), updates the trigger sentence to reflect the gate mode, leaves the :121 section untouched, and adds the required named tests covering both arms of the boolean, the rendered-body regression for advisory/block modes agreeing, and the shouldGenerateRepoSkill threshold no longer counting a

Review context

• Author: kai392
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, Cuda, JavaScript, Kotlin, MDX, Perl, Ruby, TypeScript
• Official Gittensor activity: 101 PR(s), 7 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.

Decision record

• action: hold · clause: missing_linked_issue
• config: fbbd2f69a3ec0b07b53edb4d586e8cb238d14891e0387c806c1c5d85ef7590ac · pack: oss-anti-slop · ci: passed
• note: diverted by the randomized close-audit holdout (calibration: randomized ε-holdout on would-close PRs with propensity logging #8831) — the deterministic pipeline would otherwise have closed this PR
• record: 5ba8410464dbb83a67cd51fd58400ef5a0e2ea41321951c0d669c4272bb52928 (schema v5, head 00408b7)

_{🟩 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

[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 79.53%. Comparing base (4b57927) to head (00408b7).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9925       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   91.86%   79.53%   -12.34%     
===========================================
  Files         921      282      -639     
  Lines      113266    58609    -54657     
  Branches    27301     8645    -18656     
===========================================
- Hits       104049    46613    -57436     
- Misses       7929    11706     +3777     
+ Partials     1288      290      -998     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	100.00% <100.00%> (+4.31%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/review/repo-skill-render.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 772 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver had already started reviewing this pull request — closing it to dodge the one-shot review process is not allowed. Please open a new pull request with the issues addressed.