fix(engine): redact blocklisted terms in chat-grounding tool_result events

[joaovictor91123]

Summary

• Apply the same PUBLIC_FIELD_BLOCKLIST redaction used for assistant text chunks to string tool_result content in chat-grounding.
• Cover the new path in the vitest suite (codecov) and the mirrored engine node:test suite; non-string tool payloads still pass through unchanged.

Closes #8869

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• 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.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves (e.g. Closes #123) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage locally; codecov/patch requires ≥99% coverage of the lines AND branches you changed (aim for 100% on your diff so CI variance does not fail near the threshold). Global coverage is a non-blocking trend with a loose 90% backstop, not the gate.
• npm run test:workers
• npm run build:mcp
• npm run test:mcp-pack
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npm run ui:lint
• npm run ui:typecheck
• npm run ui:build
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• Full suite not re-run locally (Node 24 vs engines Node 22). Diff is one redaction call site plus unit coverage for the string redaction and non-string passthrough branches; CI is source of truth. Replaces fix(engine): redact blocklisted terms in chat-grounding tool_result events #8960, which failed solely on an unrelated flake in miner-worktree-allocator-collisions (distinct-path acquire race); chat-grounding-engine.test.ts (39 tests) was green on that run.

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.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots arranged as organized, captioned, clickable thumbnails. SVG screenshots are not used as review evidence. Review-only screenshots or recordings are not committed to the repository.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

UI Evidence

N/A — no visible UI changes.

Notes

• Replacement for fix(engine): redact blocklisted terms in chat-grounding tool_result events #8960 on latest main. Prior failure was the recurring worktree-allocator concurrency flake, not this diff.

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-26 15:14:57 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI failing · unstable

🛑 Suggested Action - Fix Blockers

Review summary
The AI review returned non-blocking notes for this change but did not include a separate narrative summary. Review the nits below before deciding this PR.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• chat-grounding.ts:238 comment repeats '(fix(engine): chat-grounding tool_result events bypass the privacy redaction backstop #8869)' inline in a code comment where the rest of the file uses issue refs sparingly in doc comments — minor style inconsistency with the surrounding module's comment conventions.
• The new redaction only handles string content; if a tool ever returns an array of content blocks or a JSON string containing blocklisted terms nested in structured data, it silently passes through — worth a follow-up note if that's an anticipated tool shape, though not required by this PR's scope.
• Consider adding one more test case where block.content is an array (mixed structured content) to explicitly document that only top-level string content is redacted, since that's the actual boundary of this fix.
• The FAILED validate/validate-tests checks show no detail; given this branch is 8 commits behind default, rebasing is worth trying before assuming a content-level regression.

CI checks failing

• validate
• validate-tests

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	#8869
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: 166 registered-repo PR(s), 76 merged, 5 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	joaovictor91123; Gittensor profile; 166 PR(s), 5 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
foldToolResultMessage now applies redactBlockedText to string tool_result content before yielding, mirroring foldAssistantMessage's redaction, and both required deliverables (redaction call site + a matching blocklisted-term test) are present in vitest and node:test suites plus a non-string passthrough test.

Review context

• Author: joaovictor91123
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, JavaScript, MDX, TypeScript, C++, CSS, Rust
• Official Gittensor activity: 166 PR(s), 5 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 is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (CI is failing (validate, validate-tests)). 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.