fix(signals): reuse canonical failing-check classifier across signal surfaces

[joaovictor91123]

Summary

• Reuse isFailingCheckSummary from src/signals/local-branch.ts in the contributor open-PR monitor, maintainer PR packet, and PR reviewability scorer.
• Align those surfaces with the maintainer digest/readiness path (fix(github): align maintainer digest failing-check detection with readiness classifier #1902): status-carried failures, startup_failure / failed / action_required, and case variants now surface failing_checks, checks_need_attention, and reviewability noise consistently.
• Add regression coverage for status-carried and startup_failure check shapes.

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked an issue, or this is small enough that the summary explains why an issue is not needed.

Issue creation is currently blocked for contributor accounts on the upstream repo; this is a focused follow-up to #1902 with regression tests.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage locally; codecov/patch requires ≥97% coverage of the lines AND branches you changed (aim for 98%+ on your diff so CI variance does not fail near the threshold). Global coverage is a non-blocking trend with a loose 90% backstop, not the gate.
• npm run test:workers
• npm run build:mcp
• npm run test:mcp-pack
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npm run ui:lint
• npm run ui:typecheck
• npm run ui:build
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• Full npm run test:ci runs in GitHub Actions; targeted vitest covered the new regressions.

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots arranged as organized, captioned, clickable thumbnails. SVG screenshots are not used as review evidence. Review-only screenshots or recordings are not committed to the repository.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

UI Evidence

N/A — backend signal logic only.

Notes

Made with Cursor

[loopover-orb]

Tip

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

✅ Gittensory review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-01 04:45:41 UTC}

5 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 66/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
The change correctly centralizes failure detection by replacing the three local conclusion checks with the existing canonical check classifier across the open-PR monitor, maintainer packet, and PR scoring surface. The added regressions exercise the two newly important shapes in the changed surfaces, and the import is present in the fully shown file. I do not see a reachable break in the diff.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• nit: The user-facing text in the PR scoring surface still says "failing or cancelled check(s)" even though the canonical classifier now also counts status-carried failures and startup/startup-style attention states, so the copy should be broadened to match the new semantics.
• nit: The new tests cover status-carried and startup-style failures, but they do not pin an uppercase/case-variant input through any of the newly changed surfaces despite the PR description calling that out.
• Update the affected PR scoring message to say "checks needing attention" or similar so it matches the canonical classifier rather than only failure/cancelled conclusions.
• Add one focused regression that feeds a case-variant failing state through one changed call site, relying on the canonical helper for the exact accepted vocabulary.
• Readiness score is below the configured threshold — Use the readiness panel as advisory maintainer context; the score does not block this PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
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 (size label size:XS; no linked issue context).
Validation posture	❌ 5/25	Preflight is holding this PR; address the blocker before review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 54 registered-repo PR(s), 33 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	joaovictor91123; Gittensor profile; 54 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

Review context

• Author: joaovictor91123
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 54 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Explain no-issue PR.
• Fix the blocker.
• Triage stale or unlinked PRs.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.

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.

_{🟩 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 Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review