feat(api): REST + CLI mirror for loopover_pr_outcome (#6747)

[RealDiligent]

Summary

• Add GET /v1/contributors/:login/pr-outcomes[?limit=N] with requireContributorAccess, backed by shared buildContributorPrOutcomes.
• Add stdio tool loopover_pr_outcome + shell CLI pr-outcomes that proxy the new REST route (stdio tool count 77 → 78).
• Cover route/auth/parity, CLI mirror parity, OpenAPI, and session self-scoping.

Closes #6747

Test plan

• vitest routes-pr-outcomes, mcp-cli-pr-outcomes, mcp-tool-rename-aliases
• CI validate-code + Codecov patch ≥99%

[superagent-security]

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 73.68421% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.31%. Comparing base (d6e7404) to head (bf6db57).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/api/routes.ts	54.54%	4 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6981      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.24%   89.31%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         687      688       +1     
  Lines       68422    68439      +17     
  Branches    18737    18740       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits        61066    61123      +57     
+ Misses       5647     5606      -41     
- Partials     1709     1710       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.73% <15.78%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-2	36.92% <42.10%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-3	33.18% <68.42%> (+0.11%)	⬆️
shard-5	32.15% <10.52%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-6	45.77% <15.78%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/mcp/server.ts	93.05% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
src/openapi/schemas.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/openapi/spec.ts	99.46% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/signals/contributor-pr-outcomes.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/api/routes.ts	88.22% <54.54%> (-0.17%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-17 17:38:54 UTC}

13 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI failing · blocked

🛑 Suggested Action - Fix Blockers

Review summary
This PR extracts the existing `loopover_pr_outcome` MCP tool's logic into a shared `buildContributorPrOutcomes` function, adds a REST route that reuses it, and mirrors it as a CLI/stdio tool — following the exact established pattern used for `monitor-open-prs` and prior mirrors. The refactor of `src/mcp/server.ts` correctly delegates to the new shared builder rather than duplicating logic, and the parity test in `test/unit/routes-pr-outcomes.test.ts` verifies REST, MCP, and the shared builder all produce identical output for the same login. The limit validation is duplicated (once in `src/api/routes.ts`, once in the CLI) but is otherwise correct and bounded (1-100), and auth/self-scoping is covered by the added `routes-errors.test.ts` case.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• Patch coverage is 73.68% against a 99% target (CI: codecov/patch failed) — likely the CLI plain-text output path (`prOutcomesCli` heading/attribution printing) and some error branches aren't exercised.
• packages/loopover-mcp/bin/loopover-mcp.js: the limit-parsing logic in `prOutcomesCli` duplicates the same validation done server-side in src/api/routes.ts — consider extracting a shared helper if this pattern recurs again.
• The magic numbers 50 (default limit) and 100 (max limit) in src/signals/contributor-pr-outcomes.ts and src/api/routes.ts are unexplained inline literals; a named constant would make the contract clearer across the three places it's repeated (schema, route, builder).
• Add or confirm a CLI test that exercises the out-of-range limit and no-login failure paths already written in mcp-cli-pr-outcomes.test.ts contribute to patch coverage — if they already run, check why codecov/patch still reports 73.68%.
• Consider a shared `parsePrOutcomesLimit` helper reused between src/api/routes.ts and the CLI to avoid the two near-identical integer/range checks drifting apart later.

CI checks failing

• codecov/patch — 73.68% of diff hit (target 99.00%)
• validate
• validate-tests (4)

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	#6747
Related work	⚠️ 3 scoped overlaps	Top overlaps are listed below; lower-confidence bulk is hidden.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High 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: 402 registered-repo PR(s), 201 merged, 34 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	RealDiligent; Gittensor profile; 402 PR(s), 34 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds the GET /v1/contributors/:login/pr-outcomes route with requireContributorAccess reusing listNotificationDeliveriesForRecipient via a shared buildContributorPrOutcomes, adds a CLI/stdio mirror (pr-outcomes command and loopover_pr_outcome tool), and includes unit tests covering the route, CLI, and REST/CLI/MCP parity as required.

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: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 402 PR(s), 34 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 8 meaningful terms. (issue #6744, issue #6747)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 8 meaningful terms. (issue #6744, issue #6746)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 8 meaningful terms. (issue #6744, issue #6980)
• Additional title-only matches omitted; title-only overlap does not block.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Review top overlaps.
• Then work through the remaining 2 steps in the Signals table above.

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.

Visual preview

Route	Viewport	Before (production)	After (this PR's preview)	Diff
/	desktop	before /	after /	—
/	mobile	before / (mobile)	after / (mobile)	—

Click any thumbnail to open the full-size screenshot. Before = production · After = this PR's preview deploy.

_{🟩 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

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (CI is failing (codecov/patch, validate, validate-tests (4))). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.