fix(signals): scope cross-repo PR pressure by isInstalled, not isRegistered

[JSONbored]

Summary

• buildObservedPullRequestScenarios (src/signals/local-branch.ts) scoped a contributor's cross-repo open-PR pressure (approved/mergeable, stale, closed, draft, blocked, maintainer-lane counts feeding the local-branch scenario preview) to subnet-registered repos only.
• This is generic PR-hygiene scoping — no gittensor-subnet economics involved — so an installed-but-not-subnet-registered repo's own open PRs were silently excluded from a contributor's pressure model whenever they also touched an unrelated registered repo elsewhere on the instance, and a registered-but-not-installed repo's PRs were wrongly pulled into scope.
• Found via the epic Untangle gittensor-subnet integration from core self-host review features #5016 isRegistered/isInstalled exhaustive audit, not one of the originally-tracked sub-issues.

Test plan

• Added #5016 audit: includes an installed-but-not-subnet-registered repo's PRs in cross-repo scoping (positive regression)
• Added #5016 audit: excludes a subnet-registered-but-not-installed repo's PRs from cross-repo scoping (negative regression)
• test/unit/local-branch.test.ts — 58/58 passed
• Full local gate (npm run test:ci + npm audit --audit-level=moderate) green: 16032 passed, 0 failed

Advances #5016

[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 95.02%. Comparing base (21d13b2) to head (62cd614).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5698   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.02%   95.02%           
=======================================
  Files         577      577           
  Lines       45978    45978           
  Branches    14724    14724           
=======================================
  Hits        43689    43689           
  Misses       1530     1530           
  Partials      759      759           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.63% <0.00%> (-0.43%)	⬇️
shard-2	35.84% <0.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.33% <100.00%> (-0.09%)	⬇️
shard-4	33.04% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-5	31.51% <0.00%> (-0.26%)	⬇️
shard-6	44.62% <0.00%> (+0.20%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/signals/local-branch.ts	97.16% <100.00%> (ø)

🚀 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

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-14 05:35:22 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This is a well-targeted one-line semantic fix: cross-repo PR pressure scoping now keys off isInstalled (generic PR hygiene) rather than isRegistered (subnet economics), correctly decoupling instance-level PR visibility from subnet registration status. Both new tests exercise the real filter branch (installedRepos.size > 0 vs. the sameRepo fallback) and assert on the actual downstream observedPullRequestScenarios.approvedOrMergeable counter, not a fabricated shape, so they're genuine regression coverage for the swapped predicate. The change is small, surgical, and matches its stated intent from the #5016 audit.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• src/signals/local-branch.ts:622 — verify no other call site in this file still filters by isRegistered for a similar cross-repo scoping concern, since a partial swap would leave inconsistent scoping semantics side by side.
• test/unit/local-branch.test.ts — the two new tests only assert on approvedOrMergeable; consider also asserting the total scoped PR count or another aggregate field to guard against a filter that happens to pass this one field but is wrong elsewhere in the scenario object.
• Grep the rest of src/signals/local-branch.ts (and sibling signal files) for other repo.isRegistered checks used purely for PR-hygiene scoping (not subnet economics) to confirm this was the only site needing the swap.
• Consider naming the two new tests slightly more descriptively in code (not just via the Untangle gittensor-subnet integration from core self-host review features #5016 comment) so failures are self-explanatory without needing the epic context.

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.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

Fix the following blocker(s) from this PR review:

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

2. Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example `Closes #123`) before opening the PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 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 (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 45 registered-repo PR(s), 37 merged, 320 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 45 PR(s), 320 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor — Code changes are accompanied by test evidence.

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: Python, TypeScript, Ruby, Go, JavaScript, MDX, Shell, Solidity
• Official Gittensor activity: 45 PR(s), 320 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Explain no-issue PR.
• 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.

[BETA] Chat with Gittensory

Ask Gittensory a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @gittensory ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @gittensory chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @gittensory mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically -- no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://gittensory.aethereal.dev/docs/gittensory-commands

_{🟩 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