fix(engine): weight local-scorer totalTokenScore with TEST_FILE_CONTRIBUTION_WEIGHT

[andriypolanski]

Summary

• Closes fix(engine): local-scorer's totalTokenScore bypasses the TEST_FILE_CONTRIBUTION_WEIGHT discount when fed back into the score preview #8875
• computeLocalScorerTokens now derives totalTokenScore with TEST_FILE_CONTRIBUTION_WEIGHT (same formula as preview.ts's derivedTotalTokenScore) instead of a raw unweighted line sum.
• Adds a test-heavy regression asserting the weighted local-scorer total matches buildScorePreview when the explicit total is fed back vs when preview derives it from components.
• Updates MCP local-scorer tool tests (mcp-cli-plan-scorer-tools, mcp-run-local-scorer) that previously expected the old raw sum — the gap that closed fix(engine): weight local-scorer totalTokenScore with TEST_FILE_CONTRIBUTION_WEIGHT #8970/fix(engine): weight local-scorer totalTokenScore with TEST_FILE_CONTRIBUTION_WEIGHT #8977.

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
• npx vitest run test/unit/local-scorer.test.ts — 7 passed
• npm run test --workspace @loopover/engine -- test/local-scorer.test.ts — passed
• npx vitest run test/unit/mcp-cli-plan-scorer-tools.test.ts -t "loopover_run_local_scorer computes" — passed
• CI-scoped Codecov simulation — 100% patch lines (4/4) on packages/loopover-engine/src/local-scorer.ts
• npm run typecheck
• npm run actionlint
• npm run test:coverage
• 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:

Narrow engine scoring alignment fix; full test:ci left for CI. Targeted local-scorer + MCP tool tests cover the weighted total and preview agreement path.

Notes for reviewers / gate

• No secrets, wallets, hotkeys, trust scores, or reward values.
• Does not touch site/, CNAME, **/lovable/**, or CHANGELOG.md.
• No UI Evidence (backend-only).

Made with Cursor

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-26 17:00:58 UTC}

6 files · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · CI green · clean

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

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

• The diff includes migrations/0182_decision_replay_inputs.sql marked as a bare rename with no content change and no mention in the PR description — worth confirming this is just incidental repo state and not an accidentally bundled unrelated change.
• If TEST_FILE_CONTRIBUTION_WEIGHT can ever be 0 or undefined in a scoring model snapshot, add a fallback test case for that boundary.
• Pull request duplicates other open work — Check for an existing pull request or issue covering this change and coordinate or consolidate before continuing.
• Readiness score is below the configured threshold — Use the readiness panel as advisory maintainer context; the score does not block this PR.

Why this is blocked

• Linked issue overlaps another open PR: Other open pull requests reference the same linked issue set: fix(engine): weight local-scorer totalTokenScore with TEST_FILE_CONTRIBUTION_WEIGHT #9071. — Review the related PRs before spending reviewer time on duplicate work.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

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

1. Linked issue overlaps another open PR: Other open pull requests reference the same linked issue set: #9071. — Review the related PRs before spending reviewer time on duplicate work.

Decision drivers

• ❌ Code review — 1 blocker (1 reviewer)
• ❌ Gate result — Blocking (Repo-configured hard blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#8875, #8970
Related work	⚠️ Same linked issue: #9071	Another open PR references the same linked issue.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High review scope from cached public metadata (2 linked issues).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 201 registered-repo PR(s), 126 merged, 22 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	andriypolanski; Gittensor profile; 201 PR(s), 22 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: low · value: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff changes computeLocalScorerTokens to compute totalTokenScore using sourceTokenScore + TEST_FILE_CONTRIBUTION_WEIGHT * testTokenScore + nonCodeTokenScore, matching preview.ts's weighting, and adds a test comparing an explicit-total preview against a preview-derived total for a test-heavy diff, asserting contributionBonus and estimatedMergedScore agree. This satisfies both listed deliverable

Review context

• Author: andriypolanski
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, TypeScript, Rust, Cuda, JavaScript, Kotlin, MDX, Scala
• Official Gittensor activity: 201 PR(s), 22 issue(s).
• Related work: Items reference the same linked issue fix(engine): local-scorer's totalTokenScore bypasses the TEST_FILE_CONTRIBUTION_WEIGHT discount when fed back into the score preview #8875. (PR #9071)

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Compare fix(engine): weight local-scorer totalTokenScore with TEST_FILE_CONTRIBUTION_WEIGHT #9071.
• 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.

_{🟩 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 (Linked issue overlaps another open PR; duplicate of open PR #9071). 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.

[andriypolanski]

Hi, @JSONbored
pr #9071 has to be closed right away like my previous pr #9072, but not closed, so this pr is closed.
please reopen and review again.