feat(api): cross-repo queue health federation and pressure index (#479)

[kiannidev]

Summary

• Adds GET /v1/app/queue-health/federation (operator-only) returning a ranked cross-repo queue pressure index built from cached burden forecasts and 7-day queue trend snapshots.
• Introduces src/services/queue-federation.ts with composite scoring (burdenScore * (1 + stalePullRequestRate) + pullRequestGrowth_7d), snapshot cache (migrations/0074_queue_federation_cache.sql), MCP tool gittensory_queue_health_federation, and operator dashboard / weekly value report wiring (top_critical_repos metric).
• Re-implements closed PR fix(api): add cross-repo queue health federation endpoint #480 on current main for open issue [Feature]: Cross-repo queue health federation and comparative pressure index #479 — no overlap with open PRs (fix(signals): centralize public local-path redaction across drifted surfaces #1420 path redaction, feat(signals): extend public redaction for /var and Program Files paths #1307 /var/ redaction, feat(signals): classify automation and CI toolchain config in path-matchers #1261 path-matchers, etc.).

Test plan

• npm run typecheck
• npm run db:migrations:check
• npm run test:coverage
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• test/unit/queue-federation.test.ts — scoring, ranking, snapshot cache, route auth/validation
• test/unit/mcp-upstream.test.ts — operator gate for federation MCP tool
• test/unit/mcp-output-schemas.test.ts — output schema + privacy guard

Closes #479

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 98.71795% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 95.45%. Comparing base (8309b23) to head (ca85c02).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/mcp/server.ts	90.90%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1435      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.44%   95.45%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         194      195       +1     
  Lines       21054    21132      +78     
  Branches     7619     7640      +21     
==========================================
+ Hits        20094    20171      +77     
- Misses        383      384       +1     
  Partials      577      577              

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/api/routes.ts	94.63% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
src/db/repositories.ts	96.13% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
src/db/schema.ts	68.51% <100.00%> (+0.19%)	⬆️
src/openapi/schemas.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/openapi/spec.ts	99.40% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/services/operator-dashboard.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/services/queue-federation.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/services/weekly-value-report.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/signals/engine.ts	97.06% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/mcp/server.ts	95.53% <90.90%> (-0.08%)	⬇️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[JSONbored]

@kiannidev — I'm closing this, and there are two layers to it, so let me be straight about both.

The clean one first: it doesn't pass the coverage gate. codecov/patch is red with an uncovered line in src/mcp/server.ts — our bar is every changed line and branch covered, and we don't merge a red patch, full stop. On its own that's a one-shot close.

But I don't want you to just cover that line and re-push, because the deeper reason is scope, and that's mine to own: cross-repo queue-health federation (#479) is a community-filed request, not something on our active line right now — current effort is anti-gaming, contributor governance, and the Orb/self-host stack. What this lands is a whole new federation subsystem — a service, a migration 0074, an MCP surface, plus operator-dashboard, engine, and weekly-report wiring across 18 files — that I'd be maintaining indefinitely, and for where we are today that surface outweighs the value. And 778 lines of net-new subsystem isn't something I'll one-shot-merge cold regardless of how clean it is.

None of this is a knock on you — you've shipped a lot of solid work here (#388, #389, #390, #462), this is real and coherent, and you've got my trust. It's a direction call, not a quality one. If I put federation back on the roadmap this is a strong starting point and I'll come back to it with you. In the meantime the live work is in contributor-governance / anti-gaming — say the word and I'll point you at a concrete issue there. Appreciate the effort on this one.

[kiannidev]

@kiannidev — I'm closing this, and there are two layers to it, so let me be straight about both.

The clean one first: it doesn't pass the coverage gate. codecov/patch is red with an uncovered line in src/mcp/server.ts — our bar is every changed line and branch covered, and we don't merge a red patch, full stop. On its own that's a one-shot close.

But I don't want you to just cover that line and re-push, because the deeper reason is scope, and that's mine to own: cross-repo queue-health federation (#479) is a community-filed request, not something on our active line right now — current effort is anti-gaming, contributor governance, and the Orb/self-host stack. What this lands is a whole new federation subsystem — a service, a migration 0074, an MCP surface, plus operator-dashboard, engine, and weekly-report wiring across 18 files — that I'd be maintaining indefinitely, and for where we are today that surface outweighs the value. And 778 lines of net-new subsystem isn't something I'll one-shot-merge cold regardless of how clean it is.

None of this is a knock on you — you've shipped a lot of solid work here (#388, #389, #390, #462), this is real and coherent, and you've got my trust. It's a direction call, not a quality one. If I put federation back on the roadmap this is a strong starting point and I'll come back to it with you. In the meantime the live work is in contributor-governance / anti-gaming — say the word and I'll point you at a concrete issue there. Appreciate the effort on this one.

@JSONbored anti-gaming is important, but you have to block correctly.
Today I was blocked accidently. actually other miner copied my PR but I was blocked.
That miner created PR before my PR but after creating my PR, he updated his PR..
It was accident, but maybe you already know that.
you have to be sure who copies who in this case.

[kiannidev]

And actually today I tried to register my repo to help miners, but rejected...
They are asking opening PR to metagraphed and gittensor-hub instead of creating my own project.
I envy you.
How happy you are building your own project with your decision toward what you want.
I am trying to build it alone...