fix(checks): require real imports in checkers-wired home scan (#10048)

[kai392]

Summary

• resolveCheckerHome imported detection now requires a real import / export ... from / dynamic import() after stripping // and /* */ comments.
• Prose mentions (including the live check-fixture-clock-races sentence) no longer fake an imported home.

Closes #10048

Test plan

• npx vitest run test/unit/check-checkers-wired.test.ts (20 tests)
• npm run checkers-wired:check
• CI green

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-31 08:21:29 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 86/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This PR replaces a substring-scan for 'is this checker imported by a sibling script' with a real parser that strips comments and requires an actual import/export/dynamic-import statement pointing at the specifier, closing the exact false positive from #10048 (the check-fixture-clock-races prose sentence). The regex is carefully bounded to not cross a `;`, so multi-import lines and adjacent unrelated statements are handled correctly, and the new test suite directly exercises .js/.ts suffixes, re-exports, dynamic import, both comment styles, a near-miss specifier, and the exact live sentence that caused the bug. I traced the regex against several edge cases (mid-statement `.from()` calls, cross-statement leakage) and found no false positives introduced by the change.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• scripts/check-checkers-wired.ts: the `sourceImportsChecker` regex only matches quoted specifiers (`['"]`), so a backtick/template-literal dynamic import like `` import(`./check-foo`) `` would not be detected as an import and could produce a false 'none' — worth a follow-up test if that pattern exists anywhere in scripts/.
• scripts/check-checkers-wired.ts:119 (per external brief): the bare `scripts(checks): check-checkers-wired counts a prose comment mention as an "imported by a sibling script" home #10048` issue reference in comments could be a named constant for clarity, though this is purely stylistic.
• test/unit/check-checkers-wired.test.ts: the helper factories (`fromSpecifier`, etc.) are a nice DRY improvement over the old ad-hoc literal, but consider also adding a case for `require(...)`-style CommonJS imports if any scripts still use that form.
• Add a test for a template-literal dynamic import (backticks) to confirm the intended behavior when/if that syntax appears in scripts/.
• Consider extracting the `scripts(checks): check-checkers-wired counts a prose comment mention as an "imported by a sibling script" home #10048` issue number into a named constant/comment convention if this repo has a pattern for that elsewhere (nit only).

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	#10048
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
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: 93 registered-repo PR(s), 50 merged, 10 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	kai392; Gittensor profile; 93 PR(s), 10 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR rewrites resolveCheckerHome's imported branch to strip // and /* */ comments then require the specifier to appear in an actual import/export/dynamic-import statement, matching exactly the required pattern forms while preserving branch precedence and other functions untouched, and adds tests covering the //, /* */, near-miss, and the real check-fixture-clock-races prose sentence.

Review context

• Author: kai392
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, Cuda, JavaScript, Kotlin, MDX, Perl, Ruby, Rust
• Official Gittensor activity: 93 PR(s), 10 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Then work through the remaining 1 step 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.

_{🟩 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

[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 91.95%. Comparing base (c877ed6) to head (6c84758).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #10119   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.95%   91.95%           
=======================================
  Files         931      931           
  Lines      113924   113924           
  Branches    27506    27506           
=======================================
  Hits       104760   104760           
  Misses       7863     7863           
  Partials     1301     1301           

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	95.67% <ø> (ø)

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

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.