fix(orb): backport the webhook-redelivery guard to two throttle functions

[kai392]

Fixes #8681

Root cause

maybeThrottleLoopOverCommand and maybeThrottleIntentRouting guard against a redelivered GitHub webhook double-counting toward a rate limit via hasAuditEventForDelivery (added by 066398eba2, mirrored by f8f281b87). Two older, structurally identical throttle functions — maybeThrottleReviewNagPing and maybeThrottleMonitoredMentions, the ones that guard was originally generalized from — never received the backport.

So a redelivered issue_comment (a known, already-solved problem elsewhere in this file) double-counted a review-nag ping or a monitored-mention toward its threshold, which could push a legitimate pinger over threshold early and post a duplicate cooldown/close comment.

Fix

Added the same hasAuditEventForDelivery guard to both functions, mirroring maybeThrottleIntentRouting's exact shape: right after the targetKey is computed, if a prior audit event already exists for this deliveryId within the redelivery window, short-circuit (return true) before counting. No other throttle logic changed.

Tests

• New (reviewNag): fires the same issue_comment twice with one deliveryId; asserts github_app.review_nag_ping is recorded once, not twice.
• Updated (monitoredMentions): an existing test at queue-5.test.ts explicitly documented the bug — it asserted 2 pings from 2 deliveries with a comment "does not dedup by deliveryId... documents CURRENT behavior." Updated it to assert 1 (the fixed behavior) and rewrote the comment. This is the monitored-mention half of the deliverable.

Both tests are genuinely non-vacuous: reverting the two guards makes each fail (count 2, expected 1). The whole queue-5 suite (199 tests) stays green — no other test assumed double-counting.

Validation

• 199/199 in queue-5.test.ts, rebased onto current main
• lcov scoped to processors.ts: both guard blocks' added lines and branches covered
• npm run typecheck clean; oxlint clean on the changed lines; git diff --check clean

[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 91.19%. Comparing base (a93ae0a) to head (9fd940c).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8740      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.56%   91.19%   +0.63%     
==========================================
  Files          96       97       +1     
  Lines       22490    25686    +3196     
  Branches     3884     5020    +1136     
==========================================
+ Hits        20367    23425    +3058     
- Misses       1945     1994      +49     
- Partials      178      267      +89     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	95.68% <100.00%> (?)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/queue/processors.ts	95.68% <100.00%> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-26 05:25:27 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 95/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This PR mirrors the existing `hasAuditEventForDelivery` redelivery guard from `maybeThrottleLoopOverCommand`/`maybeThrottleIntentRouting` into `maybeThrottleReviewNagPing` and `maybeThrottleMonitoredMentions`, placed identically right after `targetKey` computation before any counting occurs. The change is narrow, correctly closes issue #8681, and the accompanying test changes are non-fabricated: the new `reviewNag` test and the updated `monitoredMentions` assertion explicitly flip documented current (buggy) double-counting behavior to the fixed single-count behavior, which would fail if the guard were reverted. The `processors.ts` file is pre-existing and enormous (13.5k lines); this diff doesn't materially worsen that but is a real long-file convention violation being flagged generically.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• src/queue/processors.ts: the redelivery guard hunks duplicate the same 2-line pattern already used in two other throttle functions in this file — worth extracting a small shared helper (e.g. `guardWebhookRedelivery(env, actor, eventType, targetKey, deliveryId)`) to avoid a 4th near-identical block if a 5th throttle function needs it later.
• test/unit/queue-5.test.ts: the new `reviewNag` regression test only asserts the audit-event count and doesn't also assert that the normal @​loopover reply/cooldown logic still fires correctly on the non-redelivered path, unlike some other tests in this file that check both.
• Consider factoring the repeated `redeliverySinceIso`/`hasAuditEventForDelivery` pair into one small shared helper given it now appears in four throttle functions across this file.
• If a fifth throttle-style guard is ever added, add a lint/test convention note so this backport pattern isn't missed again as it was for these two functions.

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	#8681
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 (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 153 registered-repo PR(s), 81 merged, 6 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	kai392; Gittensor profile; 153 PR(s), 6 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff adds the hasAuditEventForDelivery guard to both maybeThrottleReviewNagPing and maybeThrottleMonitoredMentions mirroring the existing pattern, and includes both a new redelivery test for the nag function and an updated assertion for the mention function proving the double-count is fixed.

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, Perl, TypeScript, Vue
• Official Gittensor activity: 153 PR(s), 6 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Triage stale or unlinked PRs.

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

[loopover-orb]

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