test(review): add a cross-order-mode invariant test for the sweep one-shot fix

[JSONbored]

Summary

• Follow-up to fix(review): stop the sweep from endlessly re-evaluating already-reviewed PRs #4474 (the sweep endless-reregate fix): adds an INVARIANT test for selectRegateCandidates covering both order modes (staleness, oldest-first) across a simulated multi-sweep drain with a mixed backlog (never-regated, already-regated, repair-priority PRs), asserting an already-regated non-repair PR never resurfaces on any later sweep.
• Test-only change; no production code touched.

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format.
• 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.
• Owner PR, no linked issue required (test-hardening follow-up to an already-merged incident fix, fix(review): stop the sweep from endlessly re-evaluating already-reviewed PRs #4474).

Validation

• npm run typecheck
• npx vitest run test/unit/agent-sweep.test.ts test/unit/queue.test.ts (791 passed)
• Full npm run test:coverage not re-run locally for this test-only diff; test/** is Codecov-ignored and CI runs the full gate.

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• This is a test-only addition (no src/** lines changed), so codecov/patch has nothing to measure; relying on CI for the full gate per house convention for test-only diffs.

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.
• N/A — no auth/cookie/CORS/GitHub App/Cloudflare/session changes.
• N/A — no API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior changed.
• N/A — no UI changes.

Notes

• Also verified live in production that the separate guardrail-hold-freeze concern raised alongside this incident is already covered by an existing mechanism (PR fix(review): stop same-head AI re-review churn and add a maintainer-gated freeze #3461, merged 2026-07-05): once a PR carries the manual-review label, subsequent contributor pushes reuse the last published AI review (github_app.ai_review_frozen_reuse) instead of spending a fresh call, until a maintainer explicitly retriggers it. No new code needed there.

[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 94.03%. Comparing base (8fafbdd) to head (2d508b2).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4475   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.03%   94.03%           
=======================================
  Files         420      420           
  Lines       37521    37521           
  Branches    13701    13701           
=======================================
  Hits        35282    35282           
  Misses       1583     1583           
  Partials      656      656           

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-09 21:20:17 UTC}

1 file · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · readiness 100/100 · CI green · unstable

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

Review summary
This is a test-only follow-up to #4474 that adds an invariant test for selectRegateCandidates, simulating an 8-sweep drain across a 30-PR mixed backlog (never-regated, already-regated, repair-priority) under both order modes, asserting a non-repair PR that was already regated is never re-selected on a later sweep. I traced the test's setup against the actual selectRegateCandidates source: updatedAt is pinned far outside SWEEP_FRESHNESS_MS so the freshness guard never masks the assertion, the already-regated/never-regated split (number % 3, excluding the repair set) correctly seeds both the oldest-first initial-drain pool and the staleness fallback path, and the per-sweep stampedAt map correctly feeds evolving lastRegatedAt state back into the next sweep's view — this is a real invariant test exercising the real code path, not a fabricated scenario. No production code is touched, CI is fully green, and the PR is an owner follow-up to an already-merged incident fix so the issue-link requirement doesn't block it.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• The repair-priority carve-out in the assertion (test/unit/agent-sweep.test.ts, new block) only checks stampedAt for non-repair PRs but never separately asserts that repair-priority PRs *are* actually re-picked at least once across the 8 sweeps, so a regression that silently dropped repair bypass entirely would not be caught by this test.
• The 54-line test body inlines a fair amount of setup (basePulls construction, per-sweep view remapping) that duplicates shape already used in the 'REGRESSION (convergence)' test above it — consider extracting a shared multi-sweep-drain helper if a third test needs the same scaffolding.
• Consider adding one assertion that each repair-priority number in repairPullNumbers appears in `picked` at least once across the run, to make the bypass side of the invariant explicit rather than implied by absence of a failure.
• If a shared drain-simulation helper gets extracted for a future test, put it near the existing convergence test's helpers to keep both tests visibly sharing one source of truth for the sweep simulation loop.

Concerns raised — review before merging

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 1 blocker	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ No-issue rationale	PR body explains why no issue is linked.
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 (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 49 registered-repo PR(s), 41 merged, 377 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 49 PR(s), 377 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 49 PR(s), 377 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.

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